England's 6N post-mortem

First topic message reminder :

Firstly, well done Wales, fantastic final result and worthy winners. I don't want you to think this post is about simply saying England lost rather than Wales won, it isn't intended to. However, i do want to ask people's opinions on England's 6Ns.

Has it been an improvement on last year? How would you rate the coaches' performance in terms of selection, tactics etc. Where have we improved or gone backwards?

For me, our results have flattered us. Much has been made of the improved attitude/culture within the squad, but I don't see it translated into performances particularly. Yes, the players seem less cocky, and?...

The scrum and lineout have gone backwards, the rucking after the Scotland game has been poor, and the attack non-existent. Our defence has been better generally, but was finally exposed by a team powerful enough to suck in players through close drives.

The selections ultimately didn't pay off either, and I think SL deserves criticism for the Croft, Wood, Robshaw back-row...it was easily outclassed, out-thought and out muscled. Some of this you can say is misfortune - having Morgan and Corbisiero out has clearly not helped, but it doesn't explain the selection of a collection of willowy lineout forwards.

I'm obviously frustrated at the result, and possibly i'll see some of this differently after a little more reflection, but I doubt it. What do the rest of you think?

english warrior wrote:
Just read the above post on walesonline and their reporter states that Wales collapsed the scrum on 6 occasions and England were penalised forit. This speaks volumes for Walsh's credentials as a ref.

And I'd add this is all about Walsh. As long as it doesnt lead to injury there is no issue in a front row doing something if they feel they can get away with it, and obviously the 'streetwise/ Walshwise' Wales front row felt they could

http://www.bloodandmud.com/2013/03/england-management-look-totally-bloody-stupid-over-steve-walsh-irb-referral.html#comments

As a side note, if anyone has an hour to listen, this is exellent

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p016hygs

A brilliant insight into the England camp, and Lancaster's mind.

Lostinwales, It's the reponsibility of all coaches to analyze a match, whether you win or lose. That's a given that I left unsaid. I'm sure the Eng coaches will learn from the match.

Triangulation, regarding point 2, of course that is obvious. It's equally obvious that if the coach thinks that, he can pick EXPERIENCED players. He chose to put some of his most experienced players on the bench. They made no difference when they came on. A coach cannot blame a lack of experience whent they are the selector and they can choose experienced players. It's an excuse.

If you play experienced players and still lose, what then? Perhaps it'll be said then that they should have chosen inexperienced players. I can recall Jonno often picking so-called experienced players and losing matches.

I would argue that England lost so heavily and didn't give themselves the best chance of winning because Lancaster got some of his selections wrong. I thought that before the match. Ashton, for example, should have been nowehere near the squad. Goode is a decent player, but lacks the pace to be an international fullback. 12 and 13 are too similar in midfield. I won't go on. A coach selects the team and if they fail he can't blame experience or inexperience, because the coach had a choice and made his selection. Understand? Or perhaps Lancaster, after they played NZ, should have said we should have lost because it's an inexperienced team that I've picked. And before playing wales, he should have said the same? Lancaster should look at who he selected and question that, not the level of experience.

Ospreydragon wrote:Lostinwales, It's the reponsibility of all coaches to analyze a match, whether you win or lose. That's a given that I left unsaid. I'm sure the Eng coaches will learn from the match.

Triangulation, regarding point 2, of course that is obvious. It's equally obvious that if the coach thinks that, he can pick EXPERIENCED players. He chose to put some of his most experienced players on the bench. They made no difference when they came on. A coach cannot blame a lack of experience whent they are the selector and they can choose experienced players. It's an excuse.

If you play experienced players and still lose, what then? Perhaps it'll be said then that they should have chosen inexperienced players. I can recall Jonno often picking so-called experienced players and losing matches.

I would argue that England lost so heavily and didn't give themselves the best chance of winning because Lancaster got some of his selections wrong. I thought that before the match. Ashton, for example, should have been nowehere near the squad. Goode is a decent player, but lacks the pace to be an international fullback. 12 and 13 are too similar in midfield. I won't go on. A coach selects the team and if they fail he can't blame experience or inexperience, because the coach had a choice and made his selection. Understand? Or perhaps Lancaster, after they played NZ, should have said we should have lost because it's an inexperienced team that I've picked. And before playing wales, he should have said the same? Lancaster should look at who he selected and question that, not the level of experience.

Yes you havent said a thing that hasnt been said before.

Where youre going wrong is youre trying to have a dig at lancaster. why dont you just enjoy your excellent win?

lancaster has not made any excuses. your first pick is your best player. your best player can still fall down in experience but that is not a reason not to select him and there is no reason at all to seelect a player purely on experience.

Triangulation, I did enjoy the win. i just think it's absurd for any coach -- not just Lancaster -- to blame lack of experience when they can select the players. It's as simple as that. I wish Lancaster well and I'm sure he and the coaching team, to use the cliche, will learn from it. I also have no doubt that Eng will do very well in the future if tehy make the best use of their resources and make the right selections.

With only 82 metres made from 93 carries despite beating 9 defenders, Garvey isn't succesfully using his bulk to get over the gain line much.

ChequeredJersey wrote:I agree being so public about the Walsh inquiry is poor form but that referee performance needs looking at to make sure he doesn't make the same mistakes in future

agreed, doing it so publiclly is just terrible though

Ospreydragon wrote:Triangulation, I did enjoy the win. i just think it's absurd for any coach -- not just Lancaster -- to blame lack of experience when they can select the players. It's as simple as that. I wish Lancaster well and I'm sure he and the coaching team, to use the cliche, will learn from it. I also have no doubt that Eng will do very well in the future if tehy make the best use of their resources and make the right selections.

where ha she blamed lack of expereince....god i never thought sl would be such a bad loser...shoudl just have admitted they got bashed

Sl hasn't blamed anyone or anything.
The meeja are just badgering him to think out loud.
He does need to do a 'forensic' analysis on all factors, age, experience, selection of out of form guys, some silly out of position stuff, the penalty calls, EVERYTHING of relevance.
While by same token don't PANIC MR MAINWARING ! which the tabloids love to be doing of course.

markb wrote:With only 82 metres made from 93 carries despite beating 9 defenders, Garvey isn't succesfully using his bulk to get over the gain line much.

Yeah I think you and DaveM might be right. He's not doing the same carrying shift he was when he was playing more at lock. On the other hand his defence is not notch and he's useful for the scrum. I think Dave may be right on his lack of pace sadly. Would still like to see him given a go if he gets a run at lock for LI.

I do wish SL and Rowntree had adopted a 'less is more' approach to comments on Walsh, and been at pains to congratulate the Welsh. Of course this could have been skilfully edited out by our wonderful media as well.

No i noticed SL in particular was reticent about congratulating Wales, but then his bubble just burst and reality came home to roost whlle he lost the crown, the slam, the championship and the trophy in an 80 minute humbling lesson on rugby....now his honeymoon period is over he faces a hard summer tour without key players and then a harder autumn.

No wonder he whinged but what was the point of doing it so publcily he just lost the respect of many

Be gracious in defeat and utterly sarcastic in victory!

Beefy, when will you get over it ?

gregortree wrote:Beefy, when will you get over it ?

next tuesday at 1.30

sl should go now. We will win nothing with him, nothing. For fiddle sake everyone wake up, smell the coffee, sl is not the man end of.

kingelderfield wrote:sl should go now. We will win nothing with him, nothing. For fiddle sake everyone wake up, smell the coffee, sl is not the man end of.

We won the Calcutta cup

and

The Millenium Trophy

LondonTiger wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:sl should go now. We will win nothing with him, nothing. For fiddle sake everyone wake up, smell the coffee, sl is not the man end of.

We won the Calcutta cup

and

The Millenium Trophy

and the Hillary Shield

kingelderfield wrote:sl should go now. We will win nothing with him, nothing. For fiddle sake everyone wake up, smell the coffee, sl is not the man end of.

Please expand on this comment otherwise it isnt worth a fig.

Yes there is plenty more to be done. Yes he has made some mistakes along the way. The guy has done a fanstastic job. Hopefully the overhaul of playing personnel that he has undertaken will never again be necessary.

Triangulation wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:sl should go now. We will win nothing with him, nothing. For fiddle sake everyone wake up, smell the coffee, sl is not the man end of.

Please expand on this comment otherwise it isnt worth a fig.

Yes there is plenty more to be done. Yes he has made some mistakes along the way. The guy has done a fanstastic job. Hopefully the overhaul of playing personnel that he has undertaken will never again be necessary.

I think if I had more guts, and if i was 100% honest I'd actually like SL to go. The reason I haven't said it is a) people will think it massively reactionary rather than an extension of my thoughts when he was appointed and b) I think it was destabilise things more, cause huge unrest and lead to a media backlash - so it's really not plausible.

However, as I say, I wasn't a fan of his appointment and I remain completely unconvinced by him in most areas. Not trying to be confrontational, just genuinely curious, how would you say he's done a fantastic job Triangulation?

Hood83 wrote:

Triangulation wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:sl should go now. We will win nothing with him, nothing. For fiddle sake everyone wake up, smell the coffee, sl is not the man end of.

Please expand on this comment otherwise it isnt worth a fig.

Yes there is plenty more to be done. Yes he has made some mistakes along the way. The guy has done a fanstastic job. Hopefully the overhaul of playing personnel that he has undertaken will never again be necessary.

I think if I had more guts, and if i was 100% honest I'd actually like SL to go. The reason I haven't said it is a) people will think it massively reactionary rather than an extension of my thoughts when he was appointed and b) I think it was destabilise things more, cause huge unrest and lead to a media backlash - so it's really not plausible.

However, as I say, I wasn't a fan of his appointment and I remain completely unconvinced by him in most areas. Not trying to be confrontational, just genuinely curious, how would you say he's done a fantastic job Triangulation?

Sorry, would...

Hopefully the overhaul of playing personnel that he has undertaken will never again be necessary

I think thats a key statement Tri...he's had to root out a load of dross, and older guys who'd outstayed their welcome, (from a team that didnt know how to ruck etc) whilst brining a large number of newbies and try to integrate them into a team...

Now we have a young team, with clear signs of progression in certain areas, and yes lots of work to be done in others.

I think things are moving fine...and hopefully with the absence of some key players..some of the youngsters will take on the leadership and we can introduce a few more skilled players to allow the next phase of progression.

Well done Geordie, a voice of balance and reason amongs the neurotic "get rid of 'em all" policy. Like Wales, England are not bad because of 1 result - They have some secure foundations to build on and SL is an astute man - In Wood at 6; Robshaw and Morgan you have a backrow to compete with anyone, Launchbury is class and in Cole you have an Adam Jones. Youngs and Farrell and nailed on and Tuilangi is a 1 man wrecking machine if used effectively. Now is the time to stick together to take things forward and not the time to get a new broom in.

Good to see England taking revenge.
Reducing the price of beer the weekend after the win.

Last year, England came second in the Six Nations but few of our players were being picked in the Lions selections published at the time. We've come second again and, while more might be in the squad compared with twelve months ago, it's still possible to imagine a starting XV without a single Englishman. In fact, today's Daily Telegraph reader selection does just that.

It suggests, once again, that Lancaster's England has worked best as a collective, rather than as a platform upon which individual outstanding talent can shine. This characteristic stood out last year, when we saw poor defensive positioning made up for by some heroic scrambling by all fifteen.

In the end, though, Lancaster's sense of an England collective, and loyalty to players, contributed to the weaker performances as the 2013 Six Nations went on. He has begun to put a premium on fielding his top players, rather than his top team.

Playing Tom Wood at number 8 doesn't get you the best of Tom Wood, just as putting Mike Brown on the wing doesn't play to his strengths. Lancaster seemed to feel it would be good for the team to have their attitude and workrate somewhere on the pitch, and would rather sacrifice a specialist to accommodate them.

When it works, it works. Will Greenwood recalled how the backline which ended the last match of the 2003 Grand Slam was made up of "Matt Dawson, Charlie Hodgson, Phil Christophers, Will Greenwood, James Simpson-Daniel, Andy Gomarsall on the wing and Ben Cohen at fullback". You can get away without specialists in key positions when everyone is a competent player and there is a powerful team ethic.

Two problems surfaced on Saturday. Firstly, I suspect some players began to have half an eye on their own careers instead of the team. That doesn't make them selfish, but it's a subtle change in mindset where, as success builds, you start to worry more about not being seen to make mistakes, because you want to keep your spot. The draw of a Lions place might also have contributed. You take safer options which, when summed up across a team doing the same, means you need the opposition to make mistakes to pose any threat. You are playing in the team, rather than for the team. When things start going wrong, it's very difficult to flick the switch back.

That's something Lancaster can address, and he touched on it when he spoke about the team's lack of composure.

The second problem is that Lancaster hasn't put a high enough premium on developing combinations. Does he really see Brown, Goode & Ashton as a potential World Cup back three? Or is it just a makeshift trio until Foden comes back and he is actually going to be a first choice winger? Is Wood going to be a permanent number 8, or is that just a makeshift solution until Morgan is fit or Vunipola more experienced?

If the latter, why are we dealing in makeshift solutions at all at this stage of development? This isn't a World Cup, where your replacements are limited. Lancaster ought to know who the third best number eight in the country is and be prepared to play him if injuries demand it. The same with wingers. It affects the other players when people play out of position and you have to suspect it played a part in our lack of attacking edge (albeit this is not a new problem for England).

Lancaster has a band of brothers but he shouldn't be so worried about identifying, and supporting, his stars. If they don't develop to their full potential then it's less likely that England will do more than peak occasionally, mainly in response to some earlier failure. That doesn't turn everyone else on the team into second-class citizens. Instead, it means they can look around at their mates when the chips are down, and think "We've got some matchwinners on the pitch right now, we can turn this around". That feeling is even more pronounced when you know they are all playing in the best positions.

nobbled wrote:Good to see England taking revenge.
Reducing the price of beer the weekend after the win.

Rugby Fan wrote:Last year, England came second in the Six Nations but few of our players were being picked in the Lions selections published at the time. We've come second again and, while more might be in the squad compared with twelve months ago, it's still possible to imagine a starting XV without a single Englishman. In fact, today's Daily Telegraph reader selection does just that.

It suggests, once again, that Lancaster's England has worked best as a collective, rather than as a platform upon which individual outstanding talent can shine. This characteristic stood out last year, when we saw poor defensive positioning made up for by some heroic scrambling by all fifteen.

In the end, though, Lancaster's sense of an England collective, and loyalty to players, contributed to the weaker performances as the 2013 Six Nations went on. He has begun to put a premium on fielding his top players, rather than his top team.

Playing Tom Wood at number 8 doesn't get you the best of Tom Wood, just as putting Mike Brown on the wing doesn't play to his strengths. Lancaster seemed to feel it would be good for the team to have their attitude and workrate somewhere on the pitch, and would rather sacrifice a specialist to accommodate them.

When it works, it works. Will Greenwood recalled how the backline which ended the last match of the 2003 Grand Slam was made up of "Matt Dawson, Charlie Hodgson, Phil Christophers, Will Greenwood, James Simpson-Daniel, Andy Gomarsall on the wing and Ben Cohen at fullback". You can get away without specialists in key positions when everyone is a competent player and there is a powerful team ethic.

Two problems surfaced on Saturday. Firstly, I suspect some players began to have half an eye on their own careers instead of the team. That doesn't make them selfish, but it's a subtle change in mindset where, as success builds, you start to worry more about not being seen to make mistakes, because you want to keep your spot. The draw of a Lions place might also have contributed. You take safer options which, when summed up across a team doing the same, means you need the opposition to make mistakes to pose any threat. You are playing in the team, rather than for the team. When things start going wrong, it's very difficult to flick the switch back.

That's something Lancaster can address, and he touched on it when he spoke about the team's lack of composure.

The second problem is that Lancaster hasn't put a high enough premium on developing combinations. Does he really see Brown, Goode & Ashton as a potential World Cup back three? Or is it just a makeshift trio until Foden comes back and he is actually going to be a first choice winger? Is Wood going to be a permanent number 8, or is that just a makeshift solution until Morgan is fit or Vunipola more experienced?

If the latter, why are we dealing in makeshift solutions at all at this stage of development? This isn't a World Cup, where your replacements are limited. Lancaster ought to know who the third best number eight in the country is and be prepared to play him if injuries demand it. The same with wingers. It affects the other players when people play out of position and you have to suspect it played a part in our lack of attacking edge (albeit this is not a new problem for England).

Lancaster has a band of brothers but he shouldn't be so worried about identifying, and supporting, his stars. If they don't develop to their full potential then it's less likely that England will more than peak occasionally, mainly in response to some earlier failure. That doesn't turn everyone else on the team into second-class citizens. Instead, it means they can look around at their mates when the chips are down, and think "We've got some matchwinners on the pitch right now, we can turn this around". That feeling is even more pronounced when you know they are all playing in the best positions.

Rugby Fan that is a quality write up you should get that in the journal.

I agree with all of it.

Most of all Lancaster's eagerness to make space for his big name players to their own detriment and the teams. Hopefully he's learnt from this, there's a reason these guys are specialists in their positions and why their clubs generally play them there week in and week out.

Hindsight is a brilliant thing and looking back we can say that four or five changes had to be made, that blind continuity for the sake of it was just as much a hindrance as whole sale changes could have been. We've come second now and have no championship or grand slam trophy and if you take more from losing then winning, or if it teaches you more in the long run then why did the team slowly evolve to look terrified of losing? Surely changes should have been made as soon as injuries occurred or form dropped, a few tyros should have been brought in to help right the wrongs (remember the effect a young and uncapped Ashton, Foden and Youngs had on the team? Or before that Strettle or Armitage?) of the Ireland and then France games. In the end we've learnt a lot less then we should have from this and now we're in rougher water then we'd like to be. Perhaps Lancaster is the one scared of losing he is after all the one that sets the agenda, maybe he brought the win at all cost attitude to the team, even if those wins do more harm then good, because surely a win of any type makes his job easier and keeps his press conferences sweeter?

yappysnap wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Last year, England came second in the Six Nations but few of our players were being picked in the Lions selections published at the time. We've come second again and, while more might be in the squad compared with twelve months ago, it's still possible to imagine a starting XV without a single Englishman. In fact, today's Daily Telegraph reader selection does just that.

It suggests, once again, that Lancaster's England has worked best as a collective, rather than as a platform upon which individual outstanding talent can shine. This characteristic stood out last year, when we saw poor defensive positioning made up for by some heroic scrambling by all fifteen.

In the end, though, Lancaster's sense of an England collective, and loyalty to players, contributed to the weaker performances as the 2013 Six Nations went on. He has begun to put a premium on fielding his top players, rather than his top team.

Playing Tom Wood at number 8 doesn't get you the best of Tom Wood, just as putting Mike Brown on the wing doesn't play to his strengths. Lancaster seemed to feel it would be good for the team to have their attitude and workrate somewhere on the pitch, and would rather sacrifice a specialist to accommodate them.

When it works, it works. Will Greenwood recalled how the backline which ended the last match of the 2003 Grand Slam was made up of "Matt Dawson, Charlie Hodgson, Phil Christophers, Will Greenwood, James Simpson-Daniel, Andy Gomarsall on the wing and Ben Cohen at fullback". You can get away without specialists in key positions when everyone is a competent player and there is a powerful team ethic.

Two problems surfaced on Saturday. Firstly, I suspect some players began to have half an eye on their own careers instead of the team. That doesn't make them selfish, but it's a subtle change in mindset where, as success builds, you start to worry more about not being seen to make mistakes, because you want to keep your spot. The draw of a Lions place might also have contributed. You take safer options which, when summed up across a team doing the same, means you need the opposition to make mistakes to pose any threat. You are playing in the team, rather than for the team. When things start going wrong, it's very difficult to flick the switch back.

That's something Lancaster can address, and he touched on it when he spoke about the team's lack of composure.

The second problem is that Lancaster hasn't put a high enough premium on developing combinations. Does he really see Brown, Goode & Ashton as a potential World Cup back three? Or is it just a makeshift trio until Foden comes back and he is actually going to be a first choice winger? Is Wood going to be a permanent number 8, or is that just a makeshift solution until Morgan is fit or Vunipola more experienced?

If the latter, why are we dealing in makeshift solutions at all at this stage of development? This isn't a World Cup, where your replacements are limited. Lancaster ought to know who the third best number eight in the country is and be prepared to play him if injuries demand it. The same with wingers. It affects the other players when people play out of position and you have to suspect it played a part in our lack of attacking edge (albeit this is not a new problem for England).

Lancaster has a band of brothers but he shouldn't be so worried about identifying, and supporting, his stars. If they don't develop to their full potential then it's less likely that England will more than peak occasionally, mainly in response to some earlier failure. That doesn't turn everyone else on the team into second-class citizens. Instead, it means they can look around at their mates when the chips are down, and think "We've got some matchwinners on the pitch right now, we can turn this around". That feeling is even more pronounced when you know they are all playing in the best positions.

Rugby Fan that is a quality write up you should get that in the journal.

I agree with all of it.

Most of all Lancaster's eagerness to make space for his big name players to their own detriment and the teams. Hopefully he's learnt from this, there's a reason these guys are specialists in their positions and why their clubs generally play them there week in and week out.

Hindsight is a brilliant thing and looking back we can say that four or five changes had to be made, that blind continuity for the sake of it was just as much a hindrance as whole sale changes could have been. We've come second now and have no championship or grand slam trophy and if you take more from losing then winning, or if it teaches you more in the long run then why did the team slowly evolve to look terrified of losing? Surely changes should have been made as soon as injuries occurred or form dropped, a few tyros should have been brought in to help right the wrongs (remember the effect a young and uncapped Ashton, Foden and Youngs had on the team? Or before that Strettle or Armitage?) of the Ireland and then France games. In the end we've learnt a lot less then we should have from this and now we're in rougher water then we'd like to be. Perhaps Lancaster is the one scared of losing he is after all the one that sets the agenda, maybe he brought the win at all cost attitude to the team, even if those wins do more harm then good, because surely a win of any type makes his job easier and keeps his press conferences sweeter?

Agreed with both of you.

So what is then with Lancaster? Why does he prefer to have holding pattern combinations containing players out of position while he waits for players to return from injury? If I am understanding the Rugby Fan correctly - he says it's because he has taken the team ethic and loyalty to players too far. If that is the case then hopefully he has learned.

Playing guys out of position does them no favours in the long run.

Does he really hate dropping players so much? It is part of his job description! He has dropped players as and when required.

To what extent are his hands tied by the EPS agreement? Access for training purposes?

Should he have pitched Billy Vunipola in to the fray?

Are Wade, May, Yarde, Sharples and co deemed not good enough? Or not ready?

Also and, im not sure anyone has addressed this ………. on paper before the match we had a very very strong lineout : Parling, Launchbury, Croft, Wood. I thouhgt that if there was ONE area we might dominate that would be it!!!!

WTF happened??

I think Lancaster is aware that it's a big task trying to collect a squad and have them believe in the unit they're part of in a place like England, with the numbers of players they have, the number of AP sides they have, the intense media spotlight they have.

It's tough to create a small-country feel (and basically I think that's what Lancaster is/was trying to do) Trying to create the feel of a New Zealand or a Wales or an Ireland. Have players grow together as a familiar Interntional squad.

But... you can't keep a lid on the truth. And he'll be a heck of a guy if he can. He will be pressured to widen his net now of prospective players.... players then will get piecemeal games, they'll feel less bonded to the England side...they'll be coming and going - fans will want their favourites...and crumble crumble time again?????

Careful what you wish for. Lancaster has roughly the right idea but pretending you're smaller than you are is a very tough thing to do in a country that talks so much (media)

SecretFly wrote:I think Lancaster is aware that it's a big task trying to collect a squad and have them believe in the unit they're part of in a place like England, with the numbers of players they have, the number of AP sides they have, the intense media spotlight they have.

It's tough to create a small-country feel (and basically I think that's what Lancaster is/was trying to do) Trying to create the feel of a New Zealand or a Wales or an Ireland. Have players grow together as a familiar Interntional squad.

But... you can't keep a lid on the truth. And he'll be a heck of a guy if he can. He will be pressured to widen his net now of prospective players.... players then will get piecemeal games, they'll feel less bonded to the England side...they'll be coming and going - fans will want their favourites...and crumble crumble time again?????

Careful what you wish for. Lancaster has roughly the right idea but pretending you're smaller than you are is a very tough thing to do in a country that talks so much (media)

Good analysis but we wont lose the faith. the basic squad is there it is really only a few tinkerings here and there that anyone is talking about. the net will naturally widen a little before contracting again leading up to the RWC squad announcement. As it should always do. There arent going to have to be any overhauuls though for quite a whuile. we should now be in drip feed mode.

What is it?

5 or 6 guys to come in to the squad?

Morgan and Corbs to come back.
Foden to come back.

Then its B.Vunipola and a couple of wingers.
36 and Burns to get more game time

Henry Thomas gets a go.

That really is about it till RWC isnt it ?

I broadly agree but I think the issue in the 6N was more subtle than just excessive loyalty to a core group of players.

I think he is trying to create a team and squad ethos both on and off the pitch - more a "Club England" feel than a small country feel. He's had to do that with a very new bunch of players and has not all that long to establish a squad.

England had a relatively small injury/out-of-form list at the end of the 6N, but they were concentrated in the positions where it would have been hardest to deal with them - his one senior LH, his two preferred No 8s, and two wing/fullbacks out of form (Foden and Ashton).

So the choice is, do you bring through a player who's not fully up to speed with the squad ethos, or stick with the players who are part of this. I think at that stage of the tournament Lancaster felt it would be more disruptive to call up new players and expect them to integrate and trust/be trusted by the rest of the team, especially in defence. So he stuck with the collective he had and trusted on teamwork to overcome the gaps.

Arguably, that was the wrong call but as late as half time in the Wales game it still looked like it could work. England were still in the game and had they been able to adapt their game to suit Walsh over half time they might still have been in it at the death.

Ultimately, for whatever reason, they couldn't get on the right side of Walsh and facing a team with the intensity of the Welsh with that little possession, something was always going to crack.

That doesn't necessarily invalidate the strategy, but it does highlight something he needs to do: to build a wider pool of players who are bought into the ethos so that he can draw on them when he needs to. That should be what the Argentina tour is about, and we will have to see.

I would still say that the squad that Lancaster has built is a little bit ahead of the one that Woodward had in 2001, especially allowing for the relative lack of experience in the squad. They have shown that they can play in a number of different ways and grind out a win - which the 2001 side didn't yet know how to do. They are still vulnerable to a team that can match or beat their intensity and they don't have the requisite squad depth - which were weaknesses that the 2001 team also had.

The big danger for them, though, is having both Wales and Australia in their pool. Wales are vulnerable to injuries and loss of form in their First XXIII, but you can't rely on that. England need to find ways to beat both those teams and build some confidence around it.

Is it difficult to create "Club England" when there are South African, New Zealanders, Samoans and other Pacific Island and SH players involved. Are these players genuinely stopping young english talent from coming through and playing with passion, pride and commitment for that coveted jersey? Or is it all too comfortable and intellectual at "Club Cosmopolitan", only Robshaw appears to have that true national grit, along with Wood when he plays 6 - Haskell has it but he lacks the brain and rugby nous to go with it

Catt and J Davies:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9947266/Six-Nations-2013-attack-coach-Mike-Catt-hits-back-at-whingeing-England-jibes-after-record-defeat-by-Wales.html

What is the collective knowledge on this board about :

Luke Wallace;
Will Fraser; and
Matt Kvesic

These 3 have reportedly been mentioned in dispatches by Lancaster as genuine prospects for an England 7 jumper.

So what are their strengths and weaknesses?

Who is the likely frontrunner?

Would a genuine scavenging, fetching openside suit the current England side ?

Would we better served with Robshaw staying at 7 as opposed to moving to 6?

What do people think?

What i want to see is 6 ball carriers in our pack minimum.

I think all England sides need that.

i think our pack vs wales probably had 4 in robshaw, youngs, parling and launchbury.

launchbury had a quiet game.

6 i think is the minimum necessary.

Vunipola can carry a couple of yards, and TY, they get across the gain line anyway.
So we are up to 5 1/2

...and Vunipola has an extra player tucked under his shirt. Don't forget that guy.

SecretFly wrote:...and Vunipola has an extra player tucked under his shirt. Don't forget that guy.

gregortree wrote:Vunipola can carry a couple of yards, and TY, they get across the gain line anyway.
So we are up to 5 1/2

I counted Tom Youngs!!

Vunipola is a good ball carrier when he's on the field. He is not a starter though.

Croft can carry in the wider channels as i am sure can Wood but that isnt what we need.

We need 6 forwards in any given pack who can carry over the gainline in traffic.

We missed Ben Morgan so badly this 6N it wasnt funny.

Vunipola
Youngs
Parling
Launchbury
Robshaw
Morgan / B.Vunipola

Marler (on club form but not yet international form) has a good carrying game.

Yeah! After all we've done to train up and develop Morgan for you guys you've gone and broken him. Don't do the same with those Vunipola boys we've given you or that'll be it

England didnt seem to have a plan B. For four matches in a row they executed a very simple rugby leaguesque game plan based on bashing up the centre recycling very efficiently with some great breakdown work from Cole and Robshaw in particular. The defense and all the basics were executed very very well.

They have a great platform now to improve on and add a few more strings to their bow and tricks up their sleeves but arent quite at Wales' level yet. I think England are in a good place though.

I dont rate Alex Goode very highly. He seems to be a bit of a headless chicken and does about 10 side steps before eventually running into contact every time. Dont get it. Id pick Foden any day instead. England have good enough players every where else.

YES we made it, its 6 !
+ the extra 1/2 under Vanipola's shirt mentioned by Secret.

...and call me greedy but i think that all 7 backs need to have linebreaking capabilities....

at the moment we have - 2 in form linebreakers in our backline - ben youngs (care off the bench) and manu tuilagi. tuilagi alone means he is easier to gang tackle - cover.

Vs Argentina hopefully we see this.

9 youngs/care/simpson

10 burns/botica?
12 twelvetrees
13 elliot daly/ george lowe
11 may/yarde/wade/sharples/eastmond
14 may/yarde/wade/sharples/eastmond
15 foden/brown

Ospreydragon wrote:Triangulation, I did enjoy the win. i just think it's absurd for any coach -- not just Lancaster -- to blame lack of experience when they can select the players. It's as simple as that. I wish Lancaster well and I'm sure he and the coaching team, to use the cliche, will learn from it. I also have no doubt that Eng will do very well in the future if tehy make the best use of their resources and make the right selections.

But why is it silly, experience isn't the only factor in selecting a player. It's possible to have an in form inexperienced player who is playing better than an experienced one. Said player still doesn't have the experience or reference points on how to handle the atmosphere etc.

The lack of experience served them well v NZ - They were just beaten by a better team on the day, better organised with a more pwoerful platform and an agressive defence - move on

nathan wrote:

Ospreydragon wrote:Triangulation, I did enjoy the win. i just think it's absurd for any coach -- not just Lancaster -- to blame lack of experience when they can select the players. It's as simple as that. I wish Lancaster well and I'm sure he and the coaching team, to use the cliche, will learn from it. I also have no doubt that Eng will do very well in the future if tehy make the best use of their resources and make the right selections.

But why is it silly, experience isn't the only factor in selecting a player. It's possible to have an in form inexperienced player who is playing better than an experienced one. Said player still doesn't have the experience or reference points on how to handle the atmosphere etc.

Nathan,

I wouldnt bother if i were you! Seriously i've already tried. If people want to have a go they will regardless.

Now someone please tell me something useful about

Wallace, Fraser and Kvesic.

Kvesic - is a Tipuric type player and I have watched him closely since he was playing age group rugby - He's an out and out 7 but I think people are asking and expecting too much of this lad. It remains to be seen how he develops, he's a decent player but I'm not quite sure if he's what people are hoping for. Plenty of time for the lad to develop though.