Doing the inventory: England

First topic message reminder :

Doing the inventory: England

Edit: I will update with backs when I have time. This took longer than expected.

Hey guys,
 
This page is for discussing the England team and set up ahead of the run in to the RWC and please please add your comments whichever team you support. Also please feel free to add your own "inventories" for your own national teams for comparison's sake. It's very interesting to see other teams from their fans' points of view and also those Same fans' opinions on our team!

There is a lot of debate over what England's best side is, what players we have available and what needs to be sorted before the World Cup. As we are 1 year out in terms of competitive domestic and international play, I thought it would be great to go through every position and do a stock check of our current, RWC and future prospects there, highlighting our likely squad and first team as well as our strengths and weaknesses. This is all my own opinion so please feel free to add yours or correct me if I have stated something factually incorrect.


LH- this is indubitably an area of strength. Already ready for England we have Lions Alex Corbisiero (great scrummager, but injury concern, when fit has impressed hugely and looks potentially a world class player) and Mako Vunipola (had some issues recently in the scrum but young, improving and a devastating carrier, a real impact sub to use against weaker scrummaging nations), not to mention new Quins captain and one of the most improved international players last year, Joe Marler (hugely better in the scrum under the new laws, offers a lot in terms of work rate but seems to have lost the ball playing and running that originally won him plaudits at club level). The RWC squad will have all 3 in, which starting is hard to say and probably depends on Corbs' knees.

Behind these 3, we have several players who could step in at this moment in time and a good looking future.

Gloucester's Wood was once highly vaunted but appears to have lost a lot of form. Matt Mullan has played for England and has the work in the loose and solid set piece to be a good 4th choice. Alex Waller looked great last season for Saints and if Corbs isn't fit he will get a chance to shine again- he's also young and will get capped in my opinion. His brother Ethan looks promising (though possibly will move to tight head). Barrington has potential though probably not enough to get capped, and Balmain with his ability to play both sides of te scrum surely has a strong future. Nathan Catt is another I could see doing a job if needed and has a good future. Interestingly my searches reveal that Sale have a Moldovan prop, good to see less known rugby nations have players at this level!

All in all, I think we can say Marler, Corbs and Vunipola are tier one (all int class, one top int class and one possibly world class), with Catt, Mullan and Waller behind and Balmain possibly the future. Here we are strong

Hooker- hooker has been an area of huge worry for years, but we seem to be strong here right now. Established options are Hartley (in form, an exceptional player though with a tendency to pop up in the scrum and recent indiscretions, also adds leadership), Webber (looks in form, partnership with Wilson, has taken his chances well) and Lion Tom Youngs (worries re his size, hooking and throwing! But can get the throwing perfectly when in a groove, great at carrying and the breakdown, adds a dimension to our dynamic pack).

Behind these players, we have Paice, who doesn't impress me, George who needs gametime but has huge promise especially in tight carrying for Sarries (he can learn from literally the best in the premiership) and 3 players for Quins. Joe Gray is technically excellent but small and injury prone. Buchanan is powerful and a carrier but raw. Ward is a turnover and ripping machine with a backrow's linkman skills and a centre's pace but has awful days at the lineout and is also small. Any would be ok for me filling in as 4th for England.

Cowan Dickie, once a prop, has lots of potential but needs another season in the shirt for Exeter. Lindsay of Wasps has fallen off his huge potential and I can only hope he springs back.

Overall, Hartley, Webber and Youngs are a good trio, Ward and Gray are good backup and with LCD and George the future looks bright too, certainly better than a few years ago.

TH- this is a tricky area for every team. Currently Dan Cole is injured and was in poor form, but he has been a top level international TH with experience, good technique and an exceptional man in the breakdown. Dave Wilson has filled in nicely for him. Thomas doesn't not convince me hugely as 3rd choice but his cameos have been ok, and he should improve his scrummaging at Bath though may also lose his place playing regularly in the premiership behind Wilson.

We have mentioned Ethan Waller as one for the future. Jake Cooper Wooley of Wasps, who started as a LH is another. Harden and Knight have struggled in a weak Gloucester pack. This looks improved next seasons but this might stop them from getting gametime. Newcastle offer one for the present, the impressive Kieron Brookes, and the future with the raw but talented Wilson. Quins' PDJ looks a spent force but Sinckler looks certain for a cap with his quick learning and strong, pacey carrying. Collier is another Quins option maybe a little less talented but closer to ready.

Cole and Wilson, in uncertain order, will play. The 3rd choice is more open, Thomas could keep it but I see Brookes or Collier leapfrogging him. In the future, we should be ok with JCW, Sinckler and "little" Wilson.

Locks- lots of debate over our starting duo. For me it is still Lawes (much improved over the last season, and fulfilling his potential at last, with soft hands and athleticism) and Launchbury (essentially an extra flanker as well as a lock), closely followed by Attwood to add a power option and Parling for his experience and lineout skills. I can see the argument to start Launchbury with whichever of the above had his club mate at hooker, but as this will be Hartley that changes nothing.

Saracens' Botha has caps and though shouldn't be near starting would not let England down in a crisis. Same goes for Robson of Quins, and Day of Saints is very underrated. None are particularly exciting though. Tigers have a blessing of riches here, with Slater (also a 6) very promising and IMO next in line, but Kitchener also highly rated for a different sort of lock. Deacon's time is last but he would still be acceptable if needed. George Skivington is IMO very underrated and is a player I'd like to see get a chance though I suspect he won't. Schofield is unlikely to add to his caps. Palmer is too old but could step in if in dire need, and Savage looks a good player with a potential cap for me.


For the future, though Launch is young, Matthews has yet to fulfil his promise but looks on track after the end of last seasons for Quins. Will Carrick Smlth is a monster that I know little else about. Stookes has potential as does George Kruis, but Dom Barrow possibly has the most of all, and Itoje in the longer term looks a certain cap.


I'd say Launch + Lawes, Parling and Attwood followed by Kitchener and Slater, with Kruis and Barrow as the future.

6- an interesting Position with many roles. Tom Wood is an excellent 6 who works with our 7, and a good leader. Behind him, James Haskell finally looks the real deal. Tom Johnson is solid but unexceptional, an option certainly.

Callum Clarke is loved by Lancaster but not by some fans. I think he had a great season last year but is not the player to bring England forward. Matt Garvey is NOT loved by Lancaster but is exactly te option at 6 or lock we could do with. In his absence (we assume), Slater could fill in at 6. Kruis is a decent 6 but a better lock, and Wray is good but not enough to cap. If Croft can come back well from injury and stay fit he adds something no other englAnd forward can (real attacking running and a great lineout) and is a shoe in for the squad, lack of physicality or not. Gibson has also looked very good for Tigers and deserves a shot at some point but also lacks power. Tom Guest is too old now to get his first cap realistically much to my dismay. Gaskell frankly doesn't impress me much at all. Welch and Wilson at Falcons look good players but unlikely to feature. Carl Fearns adds power and isn't shabby at the breakdown and should be considered too.

In terms of the future, Charlie Blair Walker is an exciting player, and S Jones will surely get capped at 6 or 7, otherwise I struggle to see many young but not academy players in this position. Moriarity could break through if his pack gives him the platform.

7- here Robshaw stands alone with Armitage in exile. Armitage's carrying and scavenging would be useful but not enough to set a dangerous precedent. Robshaw is a jack of all trades, master of all trades though sadly I expect him to go underrated his entire career. After him comes Kvesic who has had good spells, and offers a blend of breakdown and tackling but had a poor season at Gloucester. He will hope his new-look pack can help him out because he is talented.

At Saints, Clarke and wood can play 7. Dowson didn't look up to int level at all. Will Fraser has genuine talent and I hope he can stay fit as he is both present and future. Luke Wallace will get gametime at 6 and when Robshaw is away. He's a great ball player and fetcher but easily caught out of position. Scaysborough is a solid 7 but unlikely to get a look in, and the same applies for Betty, Seymour and Lund. Guy Thompson impresses me as a utility back row but not enough, Rowan looks an option for the future.  Andy Saull seems to have fallen off the horizon, and I can't see him fighting back in.


I think Wood, Haskell and Robshaw are certains here. After that it becomes hard. Slater can play 6. I would love Garvey but doubt we'll see him. After that, Fraser and Kvesic and maybe Wallace at 7 (Rowan and Jones future options) and Fearns, Gibson and Croft at 6 (Kruis and Moriarity maybe the future here). I thought we'd be stronger than we are at flanker.

8- in Billy Vunipola and Morgan we have 2 great options at 8, both powerful though with different carrying specialties. Haskell adds extra cover here too.

After these two, we are better here than I thought. Dickinson is solid. Easter is old but could fill in come the RWC in his current state (ie phenomenal). Crane is back on track with Waldrom ( no thanks) gone. Jack Clifford is the future. Fearns can play here and Burgess may be trialled here. Guest is getting on but good enough, ditto Narraway, York has fallen off the radar. And Ewers is raw but talented.


I would say Billy and Morgan helped by Haskell, with Ewers next, maybe Crane and Easter in an emergency. Clifford for the future, plus Billy will be playing for years to come.



So that gives a pack of

Marler, Corbs, Vunipola
Youngs, Hartley, Webber
Cole, Wilson, Brookes
Lawes,Launchbury, Parling, Attwood
Wood, Haskell, Croft
Robshaw, Fraser
Vunipola, Morgan


The backs:

England's backs have long been seen as an issue- with a dearth of flair, and thanks to the likes of Andy Robinson, a graveyard where the careers of promising young tyros chucked in the deep end go to die (I will never forgive the way he ruined Tait and Allen). However, a few key issues aside, I honestly feel we are stronger than most realise here and certainly stronger than any time in the past 10 years, a few fantastic players from that period aside.


9- not long ago, with Care lacking consistency and maturity and Youngs falling out of form, this was a big worry. However, Care seems to have grown into the player he should have been, fantastic for Quins, bringing that form to England and improving his pass, kick and mind to go with his high tempo and playmaking. Similarly, Youngs looked to be refinding his form at the end of last season and looking like the player we thought could be the best 9 in the world. Behind them, Lee Dickson isn't very exciting but he is solid enough for England and had a great season for Saints.

Behind these 3, Wrigglesworth is not a particularly flashy choice but he is an excellent tactical 9 and I would happily see him play in white. His club mate Spencer looks a long term option, with a similarly good kicking game. Joel Hodgson has gone down the pecking order by moving to Saints but with his skillset and 2 good 9s to learn from is another to watch out for. I don't know much about Harrison, but Karl Dickson at Quins is a solid player who could fill in if needed (not on last season's form though) and Burns and Stuart are ones to watch but need to add cleverness to their pace. Chiefs have 3 solid 9s in Lewis, Chudley and Thomas though I don't know enough about them to say if they could get caps. I don't hugely rate Young but Cook at Bath looks promising and Robson at Glaws too though he'll need to get ahead of Laidlaw, who I think is a silly buy for the club. Simpson offers a lot but also has too many flaws (like his pass...) for me to pick him for England.

Here we can easily say care, Youngs and Dickson, IMO followed by Wriggles and with Cook, Robson and Spencer my picks for the future.


10- more contentious here. Farrell, with his kicking and defence, is clearly the favourite here and has improved his attack but is still never going to be a Spencer or Larkham, and there are rumours he might be tried at 12 in the AIs. Behind him, it's a close 3 way race with Flood taking himself out of the picture. Burns had an awful season, but promises so much in terms of attack and using his backs, and if he can get ahead of Williams he will have a better platform at Tigers. Cipriani has lost the unplayable verve he once had but has also improved his temperament, defence and control and frankly looks the most balanced 10 we have in my eyes, whether he is trusted by others is another question. Ford has shown great tactical kicking and passing but poor goal kicking and is rather small for international rugby. Picking our 10s is key and is a real challenge.

Behind these players, Myler is solid. Hodgson has retired but Goode looked good in his cameos at 10 for Sarries and some have questioned the decision to ever move him from 10 to 15. Billy Burns is too young now but looks even better than his brother and Slade also looks a top quality player. Andy Goode is too old, and Geraghty seems to have fallen off the track that saw him shine so brightly in that one 6N campaign. Clegg too seems to have lost his touch and gone from flakey but a good attacker at Quins to a kicker with no flair at Falcons. I've heard good things about young Joe Ford. Barkley is past it IMO.

Farrell plus 2 of Cips, Ford and Burns, probably Ford and Burns though I think that's not the best call. For the future, mini Burns and Slade look most promising.


12- our biggest problem. Twelvetrees has looked great in spells but subpar in others. Eastmond with the opportunity to attack also looks class but was found massively defensively lacking in t3 in NZ. Burrell can play 12 but with Manu at 13? Can Manu play 12? Farrell? No easy decision here. Barritt has been a stalwart when given the chance but with Farrell at 10 and Manu at 13, that attack just seems far too blunt.


After the current squad members, there are other options. I hugely rate Allen and think he really does deserve another chance (damn you Robinson!). He has the passing (though his role for Tigers doesn't use it that often), the running lines and the defensive leadership to be what we need. However, it looks too late for Allen as he would have been picked before now were it to happen. Chris Bell is another solid clubman who I doubt raises enough pulses to get a chance. Burgess could come in at 12 but until he plays a minute of Union there is no way I can see him playing for England. Devoto looks a future star though. I don't know much about Guy Armitage at all, I'm sure Pete can enlighten me. Sam Hill I have seen and he impresses me a lot. Casson has lost a lot of form for Quins and whilst a fit JTH is vital for us and should have the power and offload to do well for England, his few caps didn't exactly inspire. And he's never ever fit. May at Welsh is ok but not an int. The last centre who springs to mind is Stephenson, for the future at least.


12 is hard but let's stick with 36 and Eastmond, with Burrell predominantly a 13 but an option. I'd love to see Allen there but we won't. For the future, Stephenson and Hill for me but I wouldn't be surprised or upset to see Devoto there.

13- Manu Tuilagi is, for his flaws (that strangely seem to materialise for England- he passes well at Tigers), a lethal player who must be in the squad. He made Conrad Smith look like a schoolboy. Burrell was poor in NZ but had a storming 6N and deserves to be there too.

After this, it becomes harder. Bath's Devoto could play 13, and hopefully Banahan is a no. Joseph looked promising but has dropped off. Tompkins is another for the future, and Tomkins didn't look international class when given the chance and I think is back in league. Can't see Waldouck making it either. Quins have some talented young centres in Sloan (probably won't make it) and Marchant (could do in the future, but very young) and Hopper impresses some. He's too flakey for me and Lowe, if he reaches his previous form from before this horrible injury, is a real possibility, underrated in attack and defence. Daly has IMO all the weapons to play 13 and hopefully will start there and not at 15 for Wasps. Trinder is another good player but needs to stay fit. The others at Falcons etc don't look like options to me.

So manu and Burrell then. I'd have Lowe and Daly next, then Daly, Tompkins and Devoto as the future.

Wing- we have had issues here but I actually think the options are good and varied. We are just low on time to pick them properly. Yarde, now playing with Brown at Quins, has nailed one shirt down with his attack. The other main contenders are Ashton, who had a good club season but may have run out of lives, May, who can't seem to run straight and fulfill his promise, Nowell, who improved through the 6N but doesn't score many tries (adds a lot else though, similar to Watson, another option) and Wade who is untested thanks to injury but looks magic to me and must get a run out frankly. Then FBs like Foden are also in the mix.

Saints also have Elliott, who is understated and does his basics very well. I think he could do well alla Cueto, who himself is too old now days. Thompstone doesn't quite look up to this level and Benjamin needs to prove he is still the player he looked before injury. Strettle does it all at club level but has struggled for England. Williams will never get capped after the B word, Monye has lost his pace but Charlie Walker looks like he might be a future England winger with his pace and ability to play 13 and 15. Arnott and Jess aren't quite there, neither is Brady. Cato hasn't fulfilled his potential but Kiribirige looks the real deal for Falcons in a few years. Ojo has missed the boat, and Lewington looks good but not great (don't know how James Short has been doing at Irish, looked good at Sarries). Sharples has fallen from favour but is still a great attacker if we need more in attack, JSD is too old now. Woodburn is quick but I don't know much about him. Can't see Banahan getting another chance, and Rocky is on the list for the Saxons but I think unlikely to make the full step up. Earle looks lethal as a future winger. Stegmann and Sam Smith are too flawed in defence without the pure danger to counter this. Finally Varndell is a long shot but still a menace to defences at AP level.


I'd go with Yarde and Wade, with Watson, Nowell and May as back ups for now.

All are young but other youngsters to step up are Earle, Walker and Kiribirige.


15- Mike Brown has the shirt if he can approach his AI and 6N form of last year when he was possibly the best in the World. Behind him Foden is proven int class but in my eyes has never neared his form of 3-4 years ago. Goode needs pace outside him but adds a dimension to how England can play. And May, daly, Nowell, Watson can all play FB too. It is a global area of strength and every club has an option here.

With Abendanon leaving and Watson a winger, Bath can offer the solid Luke Arscott. Gloucester have lost (once England vaunted) Olly Morgan but Cook looks promising at 15. Wasps now have the decent option of Miller if Daly (please!!!) stays at 13. Irish have Homer, who i see mostly as a kicker. Catterick and Tait probably not good enough at Falcons. Tom Arscott very underrated and wouldn't be too out of place. Chiefs will probably start Nowell at 15. Sarries have Goode but Ransom is ok too, and Welsh have some players I don't really know much about. Pennell, loyally staying at Wuss despite being in the NZ tour squad, is utterly class and I hope he gets to come back up. After MB for Quins is Chisholm who is dangerously pacy (but has been injured a fair bit) and OLH who wants to play 15s like it's 7s. Matt Tait is looking like the player e could have been if not for Robinson and injuries again but is still made of the same glass as Warburton and Pocock.

FBs have to be Brown, Foden, Goode, with the wingers as back ups and maybe Pennell if he goes on loan. For the future, Cook, maybe Earle and Watson look grand.


So all in all the backs look like:

Care, Youngs
Farrell, Burns,
Twelvetrees, (Eastmond)
Manu, Burrell,
Wade, Yarde, Watson (Nowell, May)
Brown, Goode, Foden

I'll comment on the overall situation, plan etc tomorrow.

Fraser. Think theres too many debuts and new combos to push a settled NZteam myself but I think we ll see Slater Wade and Watson at a later stage in the AIs. I go into any England match knowing we can win but NZ and SA are still better than us and will win more than they lose against us. Think it ll be 2016 before we have the team and experience to expect results.

Check the markets old boy, the NZ dollar is falling like a stone. None of McCaw, Smith C, Nonu, Woodcock, Mealamu will be any where near their best, if they're even in the side come the WC.....time waits for no man!

This RC will be a brute and will brake/make players across the southern hemisphere.

Of course we're behind our development curve but that is Lancasters fault, he's had time a plenty if he only knew what he was doing.

I think the side i've named has every chance of winning if their prepared correctly.

Think you vastly underestimate NZ and the important of experience and building partnerships throughout the team. Throughout his reign you've called for this player and that, whoevers on form. Not the way to go about it in my opinion as we'd be left with a lot more capped players but with only 10 to 15 caps and no settled core. You can't play NZ and expect to win with a glorified Saxons team. Thinking we should be top of the world from the starting place Lancaster had is quite unrealistic for me.

I think we need to be clear there isnt going to be much change between now and the WC.

Thus we need to sort out our tackling or defensive tactics...sort out how to bring our wingers in to the game....learn how to carry in the forwards....

Bam Bam no I am just saying that Ashton shouldn't be treated any harsher than other players when they miss tackles - yet somehow it's only Ashton who is blamed for defensive failings.


I am admittedly unfairly harsh on Nowell. He didn't do too badly (after the French game) given the circumstances but he was thrown in the deep end by an unkind selector. Defensively he helped keep Scotland,Italy,Ireland and Wales mostly quiet. He fits Lancaster's infatuation of full backs on the wing.

This unkind selector believed it was clever to start two inexperienced wingers vs France away in 1st 6 nations game of the year. He also believes it was intelligent to start full backs and centres on the wing too.

no 7 & 1/2 the one point loss hugely flattered England - England scored two quickfire tries at the end of the 2nd test (one by Ashton, the most hated winger in England).

As for the incident where Nowell allegedly helped Care score the try - if you could find the footage I would be much appreciated.

Neutralee is right. England have had issues at the breakdown. I wholeheartedly agree with him.

It doesn't mean England are a bad side - they are far from it but they have weaknesses that can be exposed.

I wouldn't say Manu's place in the side is that secure - he doesn't seem to have found a suitable centre partner.

Overall Lancaster has done a good job but still him and his coaches have plenty of work to do.

I wouldn't say Manu's place in the side is that secure - he doesn't seem to have found a suitable centre partner.

It does seem to be an issue

Well maybe we go Burrell and Eastmond and then under the new olympic rules Manu can go and play for Samoa.

beshocked wrote:Bam Bam no I am just saying that Ashton shouldn't be treated any harsher than other players when they miss tackles - yet somehow it's only Ashton who is blamed for defensive failings.


I am admittedly unfairly harsh on Nowell. He didn't do too badly (after the French game) given the circumstances but he was thrown in the deep end by an unkind selector.  Defensively he helped keep Scotland,Italy,Ireland and Wales mostly quiet. He fits Lancaster's infatuation of full backs on the wing.

This unkind selector believed it was clever to start two inexperienced wingers vs France away in 1st 6 nations game of the year. He also believes it was intelligent to start full backs and centres on the wing too.

no 7 & 1/2 the one point loss hugely flattered England - England scored two quickfire tries at the end of the 2nd test (one by Ashton, the most hated winger in England).

As for the incident where Nowell allegedly helped Care score the try - if you could find the footage I would be much appreciated.

Neutralee is right. England have had issues at the breakdown. I wholeheartedly agree with him.

It doesn't mean England are a bad side - they are far from it but they have weaknesses that can be exposed.

I wouldn't say Manu's place in the side is that secure - he doesn't seem to have found a suitable centre partner.

Overall Lancaster has done a good job but still him and his coaches have plenty of work to do.

Yet, England still only lost the match against France by 1 point, and Nowell wasn't on the field when the winning try was scored. In fact, by that time, the match was England's to lose, and they managed it without the two inexperieinced wingers...

beshocked wrote:Bam Bam no I am just saying that Ashton shouldn't be treated any harsher than other players when they miss tackles - yet somehow it's only Ashton who is blamed for defensive failings.


I am admittedly unfairly harsh on Nowell. He didn't do too badly (after the French game) given the circumstances but he was thrown in the deep end by an unkind selector.  Defensively he helped keep Scotland,Italy,Ireland and Wales mostly quiet. He fits Lancaster's infatuation of full backs on the wing.

This unkind selector believed it was clever to start two inexperienced wingers vs France away in 1st 6 nations game of the year. He also believes it was intelligent to start full backs and centres on the wing too.

no 7 & 1/2 the one point loss hugely flattered England - England scored two quickfire tries at the end of the 2nd test (one by Ashton, the most hated winger in England).

As for the incident where Nowell allegedly helped Care score the try - if you could find the footage I would be much appreciated.

Neutralee is right. England have had issues at the breakdown. I wholeheartedly agree with him.

It doesn't mean England are a bad side - they are far from it but they have weaknesses that can be exposed.

I wouldn't say Manu's place in the side is that secure - he doesn't seem to have found a suitable centre partner.

Overall Lancaster has done a good job but still him and his coaches have plenty of work to do.

I know you only bother with a direct assist or running in try so you're right Nowell had no input in the build up. I was very much in the Ashton camp until recently, I just think he's had his chance and failed to impress.

Beshocked you really do have a downer on Nowell, i just cant see why.

You've criticised him so much but excuse that Goode was there aswell in the French try. But you blame solely Nowell.

Anyway Nowell should be Exeters 15 this season so that should end the debate...

Excited to see Nowell turn out at 15 for Chiefs more often. I think it is his natural position and suits his skills much more. He doesn't quite have the electric pace (like wade) to be an international wing for me, not that I'm saying he is slow!

Yeah i agree i think he clearly is a Fb and i believe Arscott has left this summer so Nowell should be poll position.

He actually reminds me of a Halfpenny type player...he could be very good.
Though Exeter need to up their game this season.

Players like Ewers, who i thought could really make a big play for the England team.

Geordiefalcon no I don't solely blame Nowell. Goode was to blame as well but he was out of position (he's not a winger, something Lancaster fails to understand, one could argue neither is Nowell). Lancaster is the person I blame the most - it was his poor selections both as starters and on the bench which contributed to the loss. His usage of the bench was poor too.

Jimpy who cares if it was 1 point or 100? They lost (a game they should have won). You do realise that May and Nowell being off contributed to the loss. A contingency plan should have been put in place by Lancaster.

I keep banging on about the match because it exposed Lancaster's limitations and England's weakness on the wing - not for the first time. Yet again in the 3rd NZ test we saw a team have a field day down the English wings. Just like when Wales destroyed England in the 2013 6 nations too.

Seems like everyone else wants to stick their heads in the sand and not acknowledge there is a serious issue.

no 7 & 1/2 no not necessarily but please find the footage where Nowell contributes to the Care try. Field position is important but it's not as if Nowell got England close to the Irish line then Care finished it off.

An example of good field position was Farrell vs Wales - he kicked deep into Welsh territory, England steal Welsh lineout and score a try from close range. Was not a direct assist but he was part of the try sequence. You might not believe it but's clearly coincidental I mention this Sarries' player - Farrell has his limitations and flaws he must work on too - particularly his discipline which could see him getting punished if he's not careful.

You do realise that May and Nowell being off contributed to the loss. A contingency plan should have been put in place by Lancaster.

Make your mind up Beshocked...either them being on the pitch contributed to the loss...or them being off it? You cant have both.   

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon no I don't solely blame Nowell. Goode was to blame as well but he was out of position (he's not a winger, something Lancaster fails to understand, one could argue neither is Nowell). Lancaster is the person I blame the most - it was his poor selections both as starters and on the bench which contributed to the loss. His usage of the bench was poor too.

Jimpy who cares if it was 1 point or 100? They lost (a game they should have won). You do realise that May and Nowell being off contributed to the loss. A contingency plan should have been put in place by Lancaster.

I keep banging on about the match because it exposed Lancaster's limitations and England's weakness on the wing - not for the first time. Yet again in the 3rd NZ test we saw a team have a field day down the English wings. Just like when Wales destroyed England in the 2013 6 nations too.

Seems like everyone else wants to stick their heads in the sand and not acknowledge there is a serious issue.no 7 & 1/2 no not necessarily but please find the footage where Nowell contributes to the Care try. Field position is important but it's not as if Nowell got England close to the Irish line then Care finished it off.

An example of good field position was Farrell vs Wales - he kicked deep into Welsh territory, England steal Welsh lineout and score a try from close range. Was not a direct assist but he was part of the try sequence. You might not believe it but's clearly coincidental I mention this Sarries' player - Farrell has his limitations and flaws he must work on too - particularly his discipline which could see him getting punished if he's not careful.

No i don't because you have now stated that them being on contributed to the loss and that them being off contributed to the loss. Make your bloody mind up.

And on the second point, no they don't. But they do acknowledge that in context, those players did a solid job, that they may not be the future, and that the likes of Yarde and Wade should be better but have yet to showcase their talent.

I also think its extremely disengenuous to suggest that Lancaster's selections are wrong based on a flaw in his ability.

Right my team to start the AI's

1 Marler
2 Hartley
3 D.Wilson / Brookes
4 Lawes
5 Launchbury
6 Haskell
7 Wood / Robshaw - Either told to smash the breakdown like a true 7.
8 Billy Vunipola

9 Care
10 Farrell - Told to play flatter and less restricted
11 Yarde
12 Eastmond
13 Burrell
14 Ashton
15 Brown

Benching Manu stands out .. he is the only one who puts the frighteners into the All Blacks for me (if NZ isn't the first game, ignore me!)

My team

Marler (unless Corbs is at his best), Hartley, Wilson (assuming Cole isn't fully fit)
Lawes, Launchbury
Wood, Vunipola, Robshaw
Care, Farrell
Yarde, Burrell, Tuilagi, Wade/Watson depending on form
Brown

Nowell's  poor actions contributed to the French tries being scored - knocking the ball on and the inability to catch the ball (first and 2nd tries respectively). 3rd try - no proper winger on the pitch so France score down the wing. You might say it wasn't his responsibility but he did contribute to the French tries.

I am not saying that Nowell was the only reason why England lost but people seem to believe he did no wrong.

To be fair to May he didn't take much part in the match at all so his contribution to the loss was off the pitch.

Solid job? You mean both go off injured and contribute to the loss of the chance of the GS and effectively the 6 nations title in the first game?

I guess you could argue they did a solid job in the subsequent games.

I personally don't think losing that game was acceptable - Lancaster is who I primarily blame.

Lancaster is in charge of the England side - ultimately he's the one who takes responsibility.

Jimpy do you think that England's wingers have performed well under Lancaster's tenure?

Beshocked, without meaning to be rude, please tell me this -

HOW ARE INJURIES THE FAULT OF THE PLAYERS???????????????????

beshocked wrote:Nowell's  poor actions contributed to the French tries being scored - knocking the ball on and the inability to catch the ball (first and 2nd tries respectively). 3rd try - no proper winger on the pitch so France score down the wing. You might say it wasn't his responsibility but he did contribute to the French tries.

I am not saying that Nowell was the only reason why England lost but people seem to believe he did no wrong.

To be fair to May he didn't take much part in the match at all so his contribution to the loss was off the pitch.

Solid job? You mean both go off injured and contribute to the loss of the chance of the GS and effectively the 6 nations title in the first game?

I guess you could argue they did a solid job in the subsequent games.

I personally don't think losing that game was acceptable - Lancaster is who I primarily blame.

Lancaster is in charge of the England side - ultimately he's the one who takes responsibility.

Jimpy do you think that England's wingers have performed well under Lancaster's tenure?

How can them getting injured be their fault? You're deluded.

It's not the fault of the players but their injury can still contribute to a loss.

There are numerous reasons England lost but people seem to ignore some of them. As I keep saying the person who is ultimately responsible is Lancaster. He picked the team and bench, gameplan etc.

Their injuries contributed to the loss in your opinion? Yes or No?

beshocked wrote:It's not the fault of the players but their injury can still contribute to a loss.
There are numerous reasons England lost but people seem to ignore some of them. As I keep saying the person who is ultimately responsible is Lancaster. He picked the team and bench, gameplan etc.

 
So them getting injured (not their fault) contributed to the loss? But them being selected contributed to the loss...Quite mind blowing logic in the context of your accusations...
 
Taxi for Beshocked!

beshocked wrote:It's not the fault of the players but their injury can still contribute to a loss.

There are numerous reasons England lost but people seem to ignore some of them. As I keep saying the person who is ultimately responsible is Lancaster. He picked the team and bench, gameplan etc.

Then why do you keep putting the whole blame on Nowell!

The whole team was asleep for the first 15 minutes as we were against tthe AB's.

BamBam wrote:Benching Manu stands out .. he is the only one who puts the frighteners into the All Blacks for me (if NZ isn't the first game, ignore me!)

My team

Marler (unless Corbs is at his best), Hartley, Wilson (assuming Cole isn't fully fit)
Lawes, Launchbury
Wood, Vunipola, Robshaw
Care, Farrell
Yarde, Burrell, Tuilagi, Wade/Watson depending on form
Brown

Yes it does, and in all honesty in the first test v NZ he and Eastmond were excellent. Maybe they need to be kept in there...but i just wonder if Manu is able to be part of a good combo...and i suspect that is something Lancaster is thinking with his trial of him on the wing.

Geordiefalcon please quote - when did I say it was all Nowell's fault? On the contrary it seems that you who believe that he did absolutely nothing wrong even though there is evidence to the contrary.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon no I don't solely blame Nowell. Goode was to blame as well but he was out of position (he's not a winger, something Lancaster fails to understand, one could argue neither is Nowell). Lancaster is the person I blame the most - it was his poor selections both as starters and on the bench which contributed to the loss. His usage of the bench was poor too.

Jimpy who cares if it was 1 point or 100? They lost (a game they should have won). You do realise that May and Nowell being off contributed to the loss. A contingency plan should have been put in place by Lancaster.

I keep banging on about the match because it exposed Lancaster's limitations and England's weakness on the wing - not for the first time. Yet again in the 3rd NZ test we saw a team have a field day down the English wings. Just like when Wales destroyed England in the 2013 6 nations too.

Seems like everyone else wants to stick their heads in the sand and not acknowledge there is a serious issue.

no 7 & 1/2 no not necessarily but please find the footage where Nowell contributes to the Care try. Field position is important but it's not as if Nowell got England close to the Irish line then Care finished it off.

An example of good field position was Farrell vs Wales - he kicked deep into Welsh territory, England steal Welsh lineout and score a try from close range. Was not a direct assist but he was part of the try sequence. You might not believe it but's clearly coincidental I mention this Sarries' player - Farrell has his limitations and flaws he must work on too - particularly his discipline which could see him getting punished if he's not careful.

I'm one of those who is saying that Farrell is very under rated and clear first choice so I see the benefit of him. Nowell did extremely well in the build up to the Ireland try even if it were Robshaw who made assist and Care scored it. We shouldn't just ignore it.

I'd say the field day in the 3rd NZ test was through midfield as well.

beshocked wrote:Their injuries contributed to the loss in your opinion? Yes or No?

If all 23 players in a squad were to get injured within the first 20 mins, and the game forfeited (hypothetical situation) would the players be at fault for the loss? Or would the manager still be at fault for not considering the chances of all 23 of his squad getting injured?

Or maybe, its the fault of unfortunate circumstance?

On the France try where Goode and Nowell were getting beat by the bounce of the ball Goode was in the full back position at that point. Either way not his fault but just one of those things.

no 7 & 1/2 Farrell has his flaws. Every player does. I wouldn't say Farrell is underrated anymore - he had a good 6 nations, garbage in the end of season and NZ tour. Needs a massive kick up the backside.

You say Nowell did very well in the build up - where is the video evidence? Not saying you are wrong I just haven't seen it and if he did it would have had to be from very deep in England's half because Care's try starts from deep too.

Jimpy Yes and yes - mind blowing? Hardly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmViv-YNh4U

Here you go beshocked. You should prob pin the blame on the France loss in part on Farrell as well of course as he had cramp.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 Farrell has his flaws. Every player does. I wouldn't say Farrell is underrated anymore - he had a good 6 nations, garbage in the end of season and NZ tour. Needs a massive kick up the backside.

You say Nowell did very well in the build up - where is the video evidence? Not saying you are wrong I just haven't seen it and if he did it would have had to be from very deep in England's half because Care's try starts from deep too.

Jimpy Yes and yes - mind blowing? Hardly.

Alright, twisted then, even by your standards.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon please quote - when did I say it was all Nowell's fault? On the contrary it seems that you who believe that he did absolutely nothing wrong even though there is evidence to the contrary.

You've been saying it since the bloomin game Beshocked.

I have never said he did nothing wrong...however i have said he wasnt solely to blame, and the 15 players on that pitch werent exactly covering themselves in glory for the first 20 minutes!

Bambam in that situation someone should be blamed - perhaps it could be overtraining etc. You would have to look into the reasonings for such a thing.

It's stupid to just say oh well it's bad luck when are there many different things that could have been better.

Do you think England should have won? Yes or No?

no 7 & 1/2 someone should have caught the ball.

If England had won I would not have an argument, if Nowell wasn't someway involved in tries being scored by France, I would not have an argument either or if he contributed to the England ones.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon please quote - when did I say it was all Nowell's fault? On the contrary it seems that you who believe that he did absolutely nothing wrong even though there is evidence to the contrary.

 
You have, since the final whistle blew, both directly and indirectly blamed him for the loss. Oh, and you've also blamed Lancaster for selecting him, as for claiming the loss was down to his absence later on. You're digging a bloody deep hole.

If that isn't anti-logic, i don't know what is.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Right my team to start the AI's

1 Marler
2 Hartley
3 D.Wilson / Brookes
4 Lawes
5 Launchbury
6 Haskell
7 Wood / Robshaw - Either told to smash the breakdown like a true 7.
8 Billy Vunipola

9 Care
10 Farrell - Told to play flatter and less restricted
11 Yarde
12 Eastmond
13 Burrell
14 Ashton
15 Brown

I think that is a decent starting point for the AIs. I'm particularly keen to see more of Eastmond at 12. His footwork and accelaration allow him to do things no other contender at 12 can achieve for England. I'm also keen to see Wade given a run on the right wing. Again, he's another player with the ability to conjure from nothing. Get those two functioning together in the England line-up and you'll cause opposition sides real problems.

A few players (Launchbury, Farrell and Brown for example) finished the season pretty jaded, so it'll be interesting to see how they start this season. Each faces strong competition for the jersey.

Well yes no 7 &1/2 Farrell having cramp contributed to the loss too but then again he did have a notable part in the England fight back - by helping with the Burrell try.

Geordie actually my primary blame has always been with Lancaster.

All I have said about Nowell is that he contributed to the France loss more than other players in my opinion as he made errors in the first two tries which led to England being so far down in points.

As for his injury - that's not his fault but with him and May and not on the pitch for the last try - they might have stopped Fickou, they might have not but it certainly forced a non winger into that position which meant the job was harder

beshocked wrote:Bambam in that situation someone should be blamed - perhaps it could be overtraining etc. You would have to look into the reasonings for such a thing.

It's stupid to just say oh well it's bad luck when are there many different things that could have been better.

Do you think England should have won? Yes or No?

no 7 & 1/2 someone should have caught the ball.

If England had won I would not have an argument, if Nowell wasn't someway involved in tries being scored by France, I would not have an argument either or if he contributed to the England ones.

 
So why pick out nowell and May specifically? Surely you should be picking out Launchbury more as that was his primary role to ctach the kick off? France got a scrum big whoops. Still would have been easily covered but for a freak bounce what 3 or 4 min later? What about blaming Barritt for not chasing Fickou down and trying to make him score wider out? In all honesty it's a game we would have won 9 times out of 10. Sometimes these things happen. I fail to see how any other wingers would have fared better.
It is not an error getting beat by the bounce! Farrell can't get a free pass if you're being so harsh on Nowell. Goode was also dawdling for the final try why aren't you nailing him to the cross!

It's also a bit daft to suggest that we search for the root cause of individual injuries. Take May's injury. He broke his nose. It happens.

The idea that someone is at fault for that is just wrong. If someone is at fault, it means it could be corrected. Should coaches ask their players to embark on a stringent regime of nose-strengthening, perhaps? Or should they just keep their heads out of the contact area?

Poorfour wrote:It's also a bit daft to suggest that we search for the root cause of individual injuries. Take May's injury. He broke his nose. It happens.

The idea that someone is at fault for that is just wrong. If someone is at fault, it means it could be corrected. Should coaches ask their players to embark on a stringent regime of nose-strengthening, perhaps? Or should they just keep their heads out of the contact area?

Blame culture is ruining this country and it seems that the vile culture is beginning to rear it's ugly head amongst some supporters.

No 7&1/2 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmViv-YNh4U

Here you go beshocked. You should prob pin the blame on the France loss in part on Farrell as well of course as he had cramp.

Yep, Nowell picked up a loose bouncing ball deep in England territory, evaded the first Irish tackler, made ground, hit space between Irish defenders to get England back on the front foot. Immediately from that ruck England scored the try.

Jimpy wrote:

Poorfour wrote:It's also a bit daft to suggest that we search for the root cause of individual injuries. Take May's injury. He broke his nose. It happens.

The idea that someone is at fault for that is just wrong. If someone is at fault, it means it could be corrected. Should coaches ask their players to embark on a stringent regime of nose-strengthening, perhaps? Or should they just keep their heads out of the contact area?

Blame culture is ruining this country and it seems that the vile culture is beginning to rear it's ugly head amongst some supporters.

You should move to Scotland. No country takes its blame culture/victim status more seriously.

On that game, I felt the result was pretty harsh on England watching it live. According to the match stats England lost 2 of the 5 scrums they had on their own ball (winning none against the head), lost two lineouts (more than the French) and missed 23 tackles during the game. The bounce for the first try was also pretty cruel, although we shouldn't detract from the excellent winning score from the French.

My recollection isn't strong enough to point fingers at particular individuals, and the starting XV from Lancaster doesn't look particularly problematic (no Wood at 8 plus the decision to pick Burrell at centre proved correct through the Championship). The use of subs wasn't at its worst in that game, and injuries are just a case of bad luck.

I'm suprised it hasnt been suggested that Lancaster be sued for his 'mistaken' selection and the obvious mental trauma it has caused certain supporters.

If such a case were to be successful I'd suggest that Andy Robinson and Scott Johnson join Julian Assange in hiding in some non-extradition country!!

beshocked wrote:Bambam in that situation someone should be blamed - perhaps it could be overtraining etc. You would have to look into the reasonings for such a thing.

It's stupid to just say oh well it's bad luck when are there many different things that could have been better.

Do you think England should have won? Yes or No?

no 7 & 1/2 someone should have caught the ball.

If England had won I would not have an argument, if Nowell wasn't someway involved in tries being scored by France, I would not have an argument either or if he contributed to the England ones.

May should have drunk more milk so his nose was stronger...   

The injuries absolutely did contribute to the loss, particularly in the last 10 minutes when we ran out of fit backs.  But this is just the nature of the game and blame cannot be attributed to anyone.  Lancaster could have provided more cover on the bench, but what if the injuries had come elsewhere and he hadn't adequately covered that role? You can't cover every eventuality.

no 7 & 1/2 Picking out Nowell and May specifically because the wing is an English weakness. An area the French ruthlessly exposed as sub par on 3 occasions.

Look if you want to keep ignoring the glaring weakness - fair enough. Till Lancaster learns and improves that area, teams will continue to target them.

Hammerofthunor fair enough though I felt that Sexton's mistake was more important (that's the bit I remember).

Fair enough you accept the loss and believe there was nothing that could be done better - you are entitled to your opinion.

I believe Lancaster should have taken ultimate responsibility for the loss but he did not - since then I've lost respect for him. A grandslam was there for the taking yet England blew it.

You do not agree with me - that's fair enough but it's just disappointing that none of you can accept that Lancaster and England could have done things better. It was not just bad luck as it seems that many of you believe.

It's not a weakness to get beaten by the bounce of the ball and of course the third try was scored with neither winger on the pitch. Indeed the 2nd try was scored without a recognised left winger. It was a large slice of bad luck. Not every grubber kick lands perfectly for the winger, to have 2 is a lrage slice of luck pie! It's very unfortunate to have one winger go down with injury let alone 2 having to leave the pitch. If Lancaster had a further 2 wingers on the bench he would have left a glaring hole elsewhere. Like it or not we were very unlucky still not to pick up the win.

Anyone got a link or clip I could look at, not sure of the tries in question.

There you go mate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM1Ws6xi4s4

Good excuse no 7 & 1/2 - bad luck....yup.... really constructive - instead of looking at how England could improve things - just say it was bad luck - keep on saying it. To be fair to you that's what Lancaster has been doing - it's why England are still getting destroyed on the wings.

3rd try was still scored down the wing.

Lancaster is a good coach but he has limitations.


It unfortunate but focussing on the bad luck is stupid as you can do nothing about that. The poor decisions/communication etc can be fixed though. I feel that the wings is a glaring weakness - so obvious yet only the opposition seem to see it.