England 38 man squad

First topic message reminder :

With the squad set to be selected on Wednesday, I'd be interested to see what players people would like to see included.
This would be my squad in no particular order...

01: J.Marler (Quins) A.Waller (Saints) M.Mullan (Wasps)*
02: R.Webber (Bath) D.Hartley (Saints) J.Gray (Quins)
03: D.Wilson (Bath) H.Thomas (Bath) K.Brookes (Newcastle)
04: J.Launchberry (Wasps) G.Kitchener (Leicester)
05: D.Attwood (Bath) C.Lawes (Saints)
06. T.Wood (Saints) J.Haskell (Wasps)
07. C.Robshaw (Quins) W.Fraser (Saracens) M.Kvesic (Gloucester)*
08: B.Vunipola (Saracens) B.Morgan (Gloucester)

Injured: Corbisiero, Vunipola, Youngs, Cole, Slater, Parling, Croft, Garvey, Fearns, Johnson, Dickinson.

09: D.Care (Quins) B.Youngs (Leicester) L.Dickson (Saints)
10: D.Cipriani (Sale) G.Ford (Bath) O.Farrell (Saracens)
11. M.Yarde (Irish) A.Watson (Bath)
12. B.Barritt (Saracens) K.Eastmond (Bath) B.Twelvetrees (Gloucester)*
13. L.Burrell (Saints) J.Joseph (Bath)
14. S.Rokodeguni (Bath) C.Ashton (Saracens)*
15. M.Brown (Quins) B.Foden (Saints) A.Goode (Saracens)

Injured: Allen, Tuilagi, Trinder.

*Marler isn't having the most consistent seasons, whilst Waller is thriving for Saints in Corbisiero's absence. I could see him pressing Marler for a spot in the test XV

*The back row is our most competitive area. With all 5 of our flanker options the official 7's for their clubs; Quins, Saints, Saracens, Wasps and Gloucester respectively. I expect to see Fraser or Kvesic given a starting birth against Samoa.

*I reluctantly picked Twelvetrees, due to his ineffectiveness against better sides. However, Lancaster has faith in him so i'll give him the spot. If Eastmond is fully fit, his form merits a starting position.

*The wings are very open. There are a number of players who must be close to selection including May (LW) Strettle (LW) Sharples (RW) Nowell (RW) and Wade (RW) Chris Ashton really is in the last chance saloon.

This would be my XV to play New Zealand in the first test. Subs in brackets.

01. J.Marler (A.Waller)
02. D.Hartley (R.Webber)
03. D.Wilson (H.Thomas)
04. J.Launchberry (C.Lawes)
05. D.Attwood
06. T.Wood (J.Haskell)
07. C.Robshaw
08. B.Vunipola
09. D.Care (B.Youngs)
10. O.Farrell (D.Cipriani)
11. A.Watson
12. L.Burrell (K.Eastmond)
13. J.Joseph
14. C.Ashton
15. M.Brown

This would be my XV to play Samoa. Mostly squad players to be given a chance. Subs in brackets.

01. A.Waller (M.Mullan)
02. R.Webber (J.Gray)
03. H.Thomas (K.Brookes)
04. C.Lawes (G.Kitchener)
05. D.Attwood
06. J.Haskell
07. W.Fraser (M.Kvesic)
08. B.Morgan
09. B.Youngs (L.Dickson)
10. G.Ford (D.Cipriani)
11. M.Yarde
12. K.Eastmond
13. J.Joseph
14. S.Rokodeguni
15. B.Foden (A.Goode)

I agree i think thats exactly why Roko has been brought in.

Yarde is used to the system...and lancaster loves his consistency of selection.

From the Beeb

Lancaster says Burrell's injury is not as severe as initially feared and he "could come into the equation" for the later Autumn Tests.

Eastmond, Joe Marler, Billy Vunipola, James Haskell and Marland Yarde are all recovering from illness or a light injury, but Lancaster is confident the quintet will be able to resume full training next week ahead of the game against the world champions at Twickenham.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Yarde. Ropey form for Quins this season (although he seems to be turning that around now) but he has played well for England so far.

With Wade out I think Ashton is in direct competition with Rokoduguni for the right wing. Close call - both playing well this season and scoring tries.

Burrell and Tuilagi both missing is a kick in the nads, but the form of Eastmond and Joseph this season must come as mighty consolation for Lancaster.

I didn't think Ashton was in the squad.

Is Burrell definitely out then?

You're absolutely right, I'm talking nonsense. Yarde and Rokoduguni to start then I suspect.

Burrell not definitely out, but given he isn't training this week it would strike me as odd to start him against NZ. Why not give Joseph a game, who has been on outstanding form along with Eastmond, and then bring back Burrell for South Africa once he's fully fit and ready. It would seem to me an unnecessary risk.

Burrell is likely to miss the NZ game- though the article makes it sound quite tight. He might make a miraculously speedy recovery and be ok. 

Ashton's omission is a funny one, because as GF says, he's the perfect sort of player to poach a try off the end of a forward's ramble. The other wingers in the squad tend to be more creative than Ashton or Strettle, who are arguably the better finishers. I just think SL is looking for another way to create opportunities around the pitch. 

Yarde's certainly off the pace for Harlequins, and I'm pretty certain we'll be seeing Rokoduguni on one of the wings against NZ.

I still think not including Wade is a mistake.  His defence it not that bad, but better than his positioning but he does offer something no other English winger has.   He could have got 30 minutes in one of the matches at least.

In the big spaces of Twickenham he would have been an interesting choice.

cb wrote:I still think not including Wade is a mistake.  His defence it not that bad, but better than his positioning but he does offer something no other English winger has.   He could have got 30 minutes in one of the matches at least.

In the big spaces of Twickenham he would have been an interesting choice.

Possiblly, but then its not that common to put an out and out winger on the bench, and he may be better able to make a case for himself by getting back into good form playing with Wasps. I think/hope there is an international future for this guy, but you can understand why this time he hasnt been picked.

Any one see Brian Ashton's been hired as a consultant for the last couple of weeks, working closely with Catt and Lancaster?

Hopefully he'll help us get the ball to the wings and the wings into better positions. That's our biggest problem, well that and decision making in the oppo 22, hopefully though that'll be worked on too, we're great at making ground and can happily go 80m's ball in hand, but that last 20 seems to be when we always break down, rush a play or opt to kick a grubber to nothing...

Can only be a good thing I think, he may have struggled in the Head Coach role, but as an Attack coach he was very good indeed. He has a big focus on playing what is in front of you rather than set plays,which the somewhat limited England side of 2007 struggled with, it will be interesting to see how this current crop handles it.

Bathman_in_London wrote:Can only be a good thing I think, he may have struggled in the Head Coach role, but as an Attack coach he was very good indeed. He has a big focus on playing what is in front of you rather than set plays,which the somewhat limited England side of 2007 struggled with, it will be interesting to see how this current crop handles it.

I agree - I always thought Ashton was a very good coach. I had the pleasure of attending some coaching sessions with him some years ago.

He was only in the England role for 15 months I think and took England to a WC final. Whatever you think of his time as head coach his treatment by the RFU was shocking.

offload wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:Can only be a good thing I think, he may have struggled in the Head Coach role, but as an Attack coach he was very good indeed. He has a big focus on playing what is in front of you rather than set plays,which the somewhat limited England side of 2007 struggled with, it will be interesting to see how this current crop handles it.

I agree - I always thought Ashton was a very good coach.  I had the pleasure of attending some coaching sessions with him some years ago.

He was only in the England role for 15 months I think and took England to a WC final. Whatever you think of his time as head coach his treatment by the RFU was shocking.

From the outside it did seem very badly handled - mind you, they've handled the end of pretty much every coach's reign badly. It was also clear that Ashton had to some extent lost the dressing room - the progress of the 2007 team to the final was partly down to the senior players taking control and devising a playbook (because Ashton hadn't given them one). This may actually have been what he was trying to achieve all along, of course, but the players reportedly spent a fair amount of time being bewildered.

Still, its positive that he's involved again now and it will be interesting to see what sort of difference it makes.

While I find Guscott's column in TRP to be very biased towards Bath players (you would think he doesn't know about other team's players), he made an interesting comment this week.


On the selection of Rokoduguni in the AI squad he had this to say concerning the stats that the England coaches look at.

"The first stat that they check out for a wing is not how many tries they've scored, but what their tackle success rate is."

This explains a hell of a lot,
especially the remark about 'flash players'. It pretty much confirms what many English 606 posters feel; Lancaster would rather pick someone who can prevent a try r[size=51]ather than one who might score a couple.[/size]

Don't expect an expansive game from this team!

Hound of Harrow wrote:While I find Guscott's column in TRP to be very biased towards Bath players (you would think he doesn't know about other team's players), he made an interesting comment this week.


On the selection of Rokoduguni in the AI squad he had this to say concerning the stats that the England coaches look at.

"The first stat that they check out for a wing is not how many tries they've scored, but what their tackle success rate is."

This explains a hell of a lot,
especially the remark about 'flash players'. It pretty much confirms what many English 606 posters feel; Lancaster would rather pick someone who can prevent a try r[size=51]ather than one who might score a couple.[/size]

Don't expect an expansive game from this team!

But that's modern international rugby. Take the NZ game in the last AIs. England (well, mostly Ashton) gifted the All Blacks two early tries - which meant that having clawed their way back into the game they weren't able to build a defensible lead.

Likewise the game in Paris in the 6N. Slightly different scenario because England were defensively out of shape from very early on because of May's nose, and France were very lucky for at least one of the tries, but the principle still applies.

Ben Cohen scored a try every other game, but he saved a try at least once a game. Ditto Josh Lewsey. That's why they were so valuable to the England team of 2003. Ben Smith's defending of Manu's break over the summer was outstanding. International rugby is built on defence, because you will only get a couple of chances to break down the opposition, and it's all for nothing if you leak those points away.

Hound of Harrow wrote:While I find Guscott's column in TRP to be very biased towards Bath players (you would think he doesn't know about other team's players), he made an interesting comment this week.


On the selection of Rokoduguni in the AI squad he had this to say concerning the stats that the England coaches look at.

"The first stat that they check out for a wing is not how many tries they've scored, but what their tackle success rate is."

This explains a hell of a lot,
especially the remark about 'flash players'. It pretty much confirms what many English 606 posters feel; Lancaster would rather pick someone who can prevent a try r[size=51]ather than one who might score a couple.[/size]

Don't expect an expansive game from this team!

Sounds like nonsense - he picked Ashton at one point. That guy can't tackle a fish.

Is it too much to ask in "modern international rugby" that a player is test class in attack and defence ?

It's not like we have the specialty team that runs on when there's a turnover.

I do understand that defence is important, but so is outscoring your opponent.

But that comment explains why our wings don't see the ball much, except from fielding opposition kicks.

We might as well have Haskell on one wing and Fraser on the other.

Is that Guscott saying hes been told that by Lancaster or thats his own opinion?

It's not exactly clear, but Guscott makes it sound like it's come from source. Whether that source is the coaches or Rokoduguni, he doesn't say.

Interesting that Lancaster has brought Brian Ashton to work alongside Catt and Farrell, who were both in his World Cup Squad. Catt, in particular, criticized Ashton in his post-retirement book. Then again, Catt's opinions were probably sexed-up by his ghostwriter, because he seemed surprised people thought he had no respect for Ashton. The two men probably spoke privately later.

Still, it suggests Lancaster retains a lot of goodwill in rugby around that he can get Ashton involved no matter what his his history is with individuals, and the RFU in particular.

i do worry about how we are going to score points, especially once we fall behind, as we inevitably will in some matches.

it wont be from scrum

or rolling maul

or lineout

or the wings

about the only chance we have of scoring regularly seems to be manu or care. and i'm sure teams will be paying attention to those options.

if we have limited attacking threat on the wing, that gives a green light to other sides to play their most attack-oriented wingers and FBs themselves.

Bomber is v focused on defense. But sometimes ATTACK is the best form of defense. having credible attacking options in several areas prevents oppositions from too easily neutralising us.

If farrell starts in these AIs, with no wade, no manu and a depleted front row, i do fear we may only beat Samoa! hope not. but if we do, at least it might force some risk-taking into the coaching setup.

Have just had a thought. If defense is stat número uno for wingers...and wing is one of our weaker positions

Burgess on the wing?

And manu at 13.

That is actually quite exciting. If teams try to double mark either player it is going to create gaps. Looking forwards to seeing burgess on crash ball too. Will be like having 2 number 8s on the pitch at the same time.

Anyone know if he can catch or kick?

Do you really think we're that poor quins. Last 6Ns I thought we were good. Could have easily finished 1st and probably would have if the pitch was a bit better in Murrayfield.

quinsforever we don't know what Burgess is going to do.

It's taken Eastmond a long time to come into England contention - 3 years approximately - a league convert like Burgess.

Can't expect Burgess to be in England contention straightaway - he'll be fortunate if he plays any part in the RWC.

Poorfour it wasn't mostly Ashton gifting the tries to NZ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljOALSZ4Ao8

1st try - okay partly Ashton as he does miss a tackle but Manu is arguably more guilty. Manu's poor positioning allows NZ the extra man advantage. It's unfair to blame it all on 1 player though.

2nd try - Eastmond and Manu are at fault as NZ punch a hole through the centres.

3rd try - Yarde misses an important tackle.

4th try - targetting Yarde again.

5th try - Yarde misses another tackle - seeing a pattern here?

NZ targetted the English wingers and it worked wonders.



I really do worry about England in the AIs if they pick the likes of Farrell and Yarde.

I think the Ashton comment was referring to the game last Autumn beshocked?

I think SA will be the biggest test of our backs, against the other teams our pack should expect to be in top for at least parts of the game. Against the Saffas though we could be under he cosh from the start, then we'll see what the backs are made of

Bathman in London fair enough but I don't think you should entirely blame Ashton.

Watching the highlights -

1st try - Ashton tackles the man but Read cleverly sucks in 2 extra men., making enough space for the offload. Perhaps natural instinct to help Ashton but he made the tackle.

2nd try - not at all Ashton's fault. The England forwards miss a couple of tackles.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you really think we're that poor quins. Last 6Ns I thought we were good. Could have easily finished 1st and probably would have if the pitch was a bit better in Murrayfield.

Quite. In the last 3 6N we've lost one game in each - only one of which was actually a bad performance - and come second on points difference twice. In every 6N game since 2011, the England squad that's played has been less experienced than their opponents and sometimes less experienced as a XXIII than the opposing bench alone. We've also had a steady stream of enforced changes in the backline as a result of injury.

That's a better and more consistent set of results than anyone since Woodward, and it's been achieved with a significantly less experienced and settled team (the legacy of Johnno's decision to over-rely on the class of 2003 rather than back the talent he was bringing through). Two of those losses (Cardiff and Paris) you can chalk up to inexperience, and two of them (Cardiff and v Wales at Twickenham) were Walsh-assisted [1].

The team is still a work in progress and still shows inexperience from time to time. However, that was part of the deal. Lancaster started trying to build for 2015 on day 1 by dropping pretty much everyone over 30 to maximise the opportunity to build experience in a younger squad. He said that was what he was going to do, and that the squad probably wouldn't have the right experience profile until 2019 [2] , and the RFU backed him to do that.

Injuries have intervened and England are a bit behind schedule - but the overall aim of having a large enough pool of experienced players that the squad can introduce new talent gradually and can cope with injuries without disruption is still intact.

The chances are that we could have had more 6N success by hanging onto the older and more experienced players a while longer, but that just delays the point at which they have to be dropped and reduces the time to get new players up to speed. It isn't a quick fix, but the long term goal is for England to be able to compete consistently with the SH teams and I am still happy with the progress towards that.

[1] The Twickenham game could easily have been a draw - against Wales at their peak - but Walsh chose to ignore a collapsed maul on the Welsh tryline and then forget that he was playing advantage when a try was denied by the TMO.

[2] There seems to be a critical number of caps for RWC winning squads of around 700-800, which probably reflects having played enough games together to know how to cope with a wide range of game situations. It's an average of about 30 caps per player, though there will be some significant differences.

At the start of Lancaster's period in charge, he was hoping to get to that level in time for 2015, but that would have required the same core of around 30 players to play in most of the games between 2012 and 2015. For context, one of his 2012 squads had about 270 caps between them. If you've ever seen him present, he has a graph where he shows the relative experience of England vs all their opponents.

Injuries mean that getting to 700 hasn't been possible, especially in the backs. The 2014 6N backline started with 4 players with 5 caps between them. - and it was noticeable how they improved over the course of the tournament. I haven't calculated it but I think England are now around 500 caps in the squad - not bad, but a bit off the magic number. However, the upside of that is that post-2015 he has a wider pool of players starting from a base of some international experience, and nearly all of them are young enough to be available for 2019. That should allow for introducing more new players, more easily, and maintaining a stable level of experience in the squad.

Do you think after the World Cup, (assuming they dont win it of course) that Lancaster will change the balance of the team - so long as the required players are playing to the required standard?

Lancaster's main problem is he has never been able to maintain the balance of the team. He has been so beset with injuries, that his preferred centre partnership has never been played together under him. The wing combos change by the game, again mainly due to injury, the front row has been a complete mess again due to injuries.

Without Corbs and Cole, we have lost a great ball carrier and a prop that plays like a 7 on the ground. Do we change the back row to bring in an out and out 7 and then change it back again when Cole comes back? If we do we lose the work rate of either Wood or Robshaw.

with Manu and Burrell missing we will have to change the tactics in the centres, we have no one else capable of taking the ball up like those two. When either are fit again, it will mean another change of tactics.

The constant change around the centres must impede the understanding with the wingers, hence why he looks for safety first wingers. They are not going to get the ball wide without having a settled partnership that understand each other. Mistakes in those positions cost tries.

When was the last time England played a whole game with the same wingers that started the previous match? A long time ago.

The only area we have had consistency is the back row and the locks and they have turned into a very formidable combo.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Do you think after the World Cup, (assuming they dont win it of course) that Lancaster will change the balance of the team - so long as the required players are playing to the required standard?

Whether or not they win it, I think he'll be looking first to get some stability in selection. When they've managed to keep the selection consistent for a run of games, the attack has generally started to work more effectively - the exception being the 2013 6N, when the "backrow of 6s" just didn't work.

Once there are some established partnerships, I'd expect to see new players being brought through. The balance is likely to change as the coaches' perception of where the advantage lies evolves and they want a different kind of playing style, or as new players announce themselves as ready.

I wouldn't expect them to go "now the RWC is out of the way, let's bring Wade in and teach him to defend". I also wouldn't necessarily expect a wholesale change of style. One of Lancaster's strengths, to my mind, is that he has a clear view of what he wants to do and he hasn't been swayed by individual results (unlike Johnno's rapid and disastrous retreat into conservatism after the defeat in Dublin).

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Lancaster's main problem is he has never been able to maintain the balance of the team. He has been so beset with injuries, that his preferred centre partnership has never been played together under him. The wing combos change by the game, again mainly due to injury, the front row has been a complete mess again due to injuries.

Without Corbs and Cole, we have lost a great ball carrier and a prop that plays like a 7 on the ground. Do we change the back row to bring in an out and out 7 and then change it back again when Cole comes back? If we do we lose the work rate of either Wood or Robshaw.

with Manu and Burrell missing we will have to change the tactics in the centres, we have no one else capable of taking the ball up like those two. When either are fit again, it will mean another change of tactics.

The constant change around the centres must impede the understanding with the wingers, hence why he looks for safety first wingers. They are not going to get the ball wide without having a settled partnership that understand each other. Mistakes in those positions cost tries.

When was the last time England played a whole game with the same wingers that started the previous match? A long time ago.

The only area we have had consistency is the back row and the locks and they have turned into a very formidable combo.

I'd agree with most of that except the stuff about the front row. Corbs has been unavailable to him for pretty much his whole tenure, so he's never really "lost" him. IIRC, Marler has been part of almost every playing squad since the SA tour (although he regards himself as third choice). Cole was looking a bit lost under the new engagement even before his injury - maybe he will come back strongly, which would be handy, but Wilson is for me the man in pole position anyway.

While it would be helpful to have Cole's strength at the breakdown, the back 5 are all pretty good breakdown operators, especially when Billy V plays instead of Morgan. I think also that England's strategy is not to overcommit to the breakdown and only to go after the ball if there's a realistic chance of winning it. That may need some fine tuning - in the summer they looked like they were giving the ABs too easy a time of it - but the capability is there.

I think also that England's strategy is not to overcommit to the breakdown and only to go after the ball if there's a realistic chance of winning it. That may need some fine tuning - in the summer they looked like they were giving the ABs too easy a time of it - but the capability is there

Poorfour, thats an area i have highlighted previously. The breakdown, ruck and clearing out.
We are trying to copy an AB template...the clear difference for me in the two sides is what happens on the decision to go for it.

Their clearing out when they have the ball is furious and aggressive. Englands at times seems not as much.
On a defensive aspect...when they pack decide to go for the counter attack...the whole AB pack seem to have a telepathy...they hit it vicously on mass, like a pack of crazed hyenas at a kill site. And its not just going for the ball...they aggressively suerge past and take anything in their way out of the game.
Its great to watch and is so effective. England just dont seem to match that.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

I think also that England's strategy is not to overcommit to the breakdown and only to go after the ball if there's a realistic chance of winning it. That may need some fine tuning - in the summer they looked like they were giving the ABs too easy a time of it - but the capability is there

Poorfour, thats an area i have highlighted previously. The breakdown, ruck and clearing out.
We are trying to copy an AB template...the clear difference for me in the two sides is what happens on the decision to go for it.

Their clearing out when they have the ball is furious and aggressive. Englands at times seems not as much.
On a defensive aspect...when they pack decide to go for the counter attack...the whole AB pack seem to have a telepathy...they hit it vicously on mass, like a pack of crazed hyenas at a kill site. And its not just going for the ball...they aggressively suerge past and take anything in their way out of the game.
Its great to watch and is so effective. England just dont seem to match that.

True - but does anyone? I think that kind of approach can only really arise by having a team that plays together consistently. England have been very good at the breakdown - think about the Ireland game in the 6N for an example, but I think the patched up nature of the team in NZ, especially in the 3rd test, made it harder for them to work that way. I also wonder if not having a fit Danny Care made a difference - while he doesn't get involved directly he can be a very effective marshal of forward activity.

I think that kind of approach can only really arise by having a team that plays together consistently

But surely the pack HAS been consistent in selection.
Marler, Hartley, Wilson
Lawes, Launchbury
Wood, Billy V and Robshaw.

The backs i accept are a different kettle of fish.

Anyway its an area of our game i will be watching with great interest this AI's.

But the pack has pretty much played consistently well. We 've been mullered vs Wales, when it was patched up and mullered in the 1st half of a 3rd test away to NZ.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

I think that kind of approach can only really arise by having a team that plays together consistently

But surely the pack HAS been consistent in selection.
Marler, Hartley, Wilson
Lawes, Launchbury
Wood, Billy V and Robshaw.

The backs i accept are a different kettle of fish.

Anyway its an area of our game i will be watching with great interest this AI's.

It hasn't been quite as consistent as all that. While that looks like the most likely starting pack for the AIs, from what I can remember he's used:
Corbs (6N 2012), Mako
Youngs, Webber (Gray for 5 minutes)
Cole, Thomas
Parling (Attwood?)
Croft, Haskell, Dowson
Morgan (Wood)

From memory:
6N 2012 - Corbs, Cole, Parling and Croft in for Marler, Wilson, Lawes and Wood
Summer 2012, AI 2012, 6N 2013 - Cole and I think Parling were still in
Summer 2013 - Lions summer. Doesn't count
I think we've had this pack fairly consistently from AI 2013 to now, albeit with changes in NZ. So they've probably had 8 or 9 games together. Not all that long, all things considered.

Botha, Johnson and Paice as well

Depending on how he goes this weekend, it looks like we could be up against Sonny Bill Williams at some point. However secure you think Eastmond is in the tackle, is he really going to be able to do a job of stopping him on the gainline and preventing the offloads?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you really think we're that poor quins. Last 6Ns I thought we were good. Could have easily finished 1st and probably would have if the pitch was a bit better in Murrayfield.

yes, that murrayfield pitch was an absolute disgrace. nematode problem my behind!

6Ns is not my ultimate prize. France were/are shocking. Wales struggling now everyone knows their gameplan and personnel. And Ireland are very similar in current ability to England. but i think there is a big gulf between SA/NZ and the 6Ns.

i agree we are better than we were, and Lancaster clearly has a strategy that has helped England's consistency. respect for the jersey, safe pair of hands, fitness, everyone knowing their responsibilities, yes these have helped England's results in the last 2 years after a lot of the senior players moved on.

part of the reason Manu helped us turn over the kiwis 2 years ago, is that he was different and they had not played against him. We need to make sure we have plan B, C and D, and the right personnel to effect changes, if we want to outthink the ABs.

thomh wrote:Depending on how he goes this weekend, it looks like we could be up against Sonny Bill Williams at some point. However secure you think Eastmond is in the tackle, is he really going to be able to do a job of stopping him on the gainline and preventing the offloads?

is he playing in the USA game?

i've only watched him a few times, but i remember his most sublime offloads in union being in open play or after he has already made a line break, rather than from the back of scrum or lineout.

i hope he plays. will be a great challenge for our team.

quinsforever wrote:i agree we are better than we were, and Lancaster clearly has a strategy that has helped England's consistency. respect for the jersey, safe pair of hands, fitness, everyone knowing their responsibilities, yes these have helped England's results in the last 2 years after a lot of the senior players moved on.

part of the reason Manu helped us turn over the kiwis 2 years ago, is that he was different and they had not played against him. We need to make sure we have plan B, C and D, and the right personnel to effect changes, if we want to outthink the ABs.

I'm pretty sure Lancaster would agree. But I'm equally sure that what he's trying to do is to get the basics right and then build the surprise and attacking moves on top of that. You can see how it develops whenever he's had the same squad for a string of matches. The problem is, it's too easily disrupted because there isn't enough experience in the squad yet.

It took Woodward at least 5 years to get a good plan B in place, and by the time he left for the RWC he had sufficient squad depth to have a second string team who were withing 1 kick of beating France in Marseille. Lancaster is 2 years earlier in the schedule and starting from a lower base - and yet we all seem to expect his teams to trot out performances like the 2003 vintage anyway.

quinsforever wrote:

thomh wrote:Depending on how he goes this weekend, it looks like we could be up against Sonny Bill Williams at some point. However secure you think Eastmond is in the tackle, is he really going to be able to do a job of stopping him on the gainline and preventing the offloads?

is he playing in the USA game?

i've only watched him a few times, but i remember his most sublime offloads in union being in open play or after he has already made a line break, rather than from the back of scrum or lineout.

i hope he plays. will be a great challenge for our team.

He's starting, with Cruden and Dagg. It's nowhere near their strongest team, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him at 12 or 23 against us if he does well.

NZ know how we love playing against a monster in their backs

Just out of interest what would people realistically call a good Autumn Series results wise?

For me it'd be:

NZ - Run them close and have a chance to win it at the end, if we're down by two or three scores then that'll be a backwards step in my book. Must score a try or two at least to show our attack works

SA - Match them physically and not get mullered

Samoa - Strong win with some good tries and moves, try not to concede a try.

Australia - Strong win

So two good wins and two close losses.

I think anything less than 3 wins would be a poor AI, I'd have took 2 last year but we really should be kicking on this close to the WC.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I think anything less than 3 wins would be a poor AI, I'd have took 2 last year but we really should be kicking on this close to the WC.

100% agree, although I imagine the message in the England camp will be 100% this Autumn and nothing less. They need to lay markers down for the RWC next year and develop that fortress mentality and home.

I can't call the NZ game to be honest, but I think England will be firing for that one, they cannot afford to lose it as they've already admitted that NZ have started to gain the mental edge over them.

For me the interesting one is SA, as this England side have yet to beat them when in all honesty they should have 2 years ago.

Poorfour wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you really think we're that poor quins. Last 6Ns I thought we were good. Could have easily finished 1st and probably would have if the pitch was a bit better in Murrayfield.

Quite. In the last 3 6N we've lost one game in each - only one of which was actually a bad performance - and come second on points difference twice. In every 6N game since 2011, the England squad that's played has been less experienced than their opponents and sometimes less experienced as a XXIII than the opposing bench alone. We've also had a steady stream of enforced changes in the backline as a result of injury.

That's a better and more consistent set of results than anyone since Woodward, and it's been achieved with a significantly less experienced and settled team (the legacy of Johnno's decision to over-rely on the class of 2003 rather than back the talent he was bringing through). Two of those losses (Cardiff and Paris) you can chalk up to inexperience, and two of them (Cardiff and v Wales at Twickenham) were Walsh-assisted [1].

The team is still a work in progress and still shows inexperience from time to time. However, that was part of the deal. Lancaster started trying to build for 2015 on day 1 by dropping pretty much everyone over 30 to maximise the opportunity to build experience in a younger squad. He said that was what he was going to do, and that the squad probably wouldn't have the right experience profile until 2019 [2] , and the RFU backed him to do that.

Injuries have intervened and England are a bit behind schedule - but the overall aim of having a large enough pool of experienced players that the squad can introduce new talent gradually and can cope with injuries without disruption is still intact.

The chances are that we could have had more 6N success by hanging onto the older and more experienced players a while longer, but that just delays the point at which they have to be dropped and reduces the time to get new players up to speed. It isn't a quick fix, but the long term goal is for England to be able to compete consistently with the SH teams and I am still happy with the progress towards that.

[1] The Twickenham game could easily have been a draw - against Wales at their peak - but Walsh chose to ignore a collapsed maul on the Welsh tryline and then forget that he was playing advantage when a try was denied by the TMO.

[2] There seems to be a critical number of caps for RWC winning squads of around 700-800, which probably reflects having played enough games together to know how to cope with a wide range of game situations. It's an average of about 30 caps per player, though there will be some significant differences.

At the start of Lancaster's period in charge, he was hoping to get to that level in time for 2015, but that would have required the same core of around 30 players to play in most of the games between 2012 and 2015. For context, one of his 2012 squads had about 270 caps between them. If you've ever seen him present, he has a graph where he shows the relative experience of England vs all their opponents.

Injuries mean that getting to 700 hasn't been possible, especially in the backs. The 2014 6N backline started with 4 players with 5 caps between them. - and it was noticeable how they improved over the course of the tournament. I haven't calculated it but I think England are now around 500 caps in the squad - not bad, but a bit off the magic number. However, the upside of that is that post-2015 he has a wider pool of players starting from a base  of some international experience, and nearly all of them are young enough to be available for 2019. That should allow for introducing more new players, more easily, and maintaining a stable level of experience in the squad.

This is very simplistic analysis. All you've done is take the headline figure of 700 magic caps and completely failed to understand what lies beneath.

The fact that the coaching in general has been average especially in terms of a winning stratergy means that there is no real prescient understanding and therefore target for the players/team to aim for or achieve.

Lancaster dosn't really have an understanding of where he's going and even if he thinks he does, he dosn't actually know how to really drive the bus to get there.

How do board posters know the coaching is average? Have they attended the coaching sessions?

kingelderfield wrote:

This is very simplistic analysis. All you've done is take the headline figure of 700 magic caps and completely failed to understand what lies beneath.

The fact that the coaching in general has been average especially in terms of a winning stratergy means that there is no real prescient understanding and therefore target for the players/team to aim for or achieve.

Lancaster dosn't really have an understanding of where he's going and even if he thinks he does, he dosn't actually know how to really drive the bus to get there.

So the best record in the NH over the last three years is average, just about every other poster on here agrees Lancaster has a strategy, they may not agree with it, but they acknowledge that he has one.

He has no direction ( well not as good as a bus drivers anyway), he stated clearly when he took over that 2015 was probably too soon for the young squad he was assembling, 2019 was when he though they would be at their best.

He seems to ahead of target, despite the injury problems that have hampered continuity within the squad, ranked 3rd in the world; beaten the AB, took then close in 2 out of 3 in NZ with a weakened side; beaten Australia more times than not home and away. Only SA remain to be beaten by this very young squad.

By contemporary comparison, few have a better record when building from scratch or even from an established side.

Agree well past it.

We all may have the odd question mark about selections and such at times but in general we can't complain about what Lancaster has done.

It would be interesting indeed to see what would have happened had we had full choice of players for his full tenure. A fully fitted Corbs, Cole, manu etc.

Let's see how we go this AI.

So the Telegraph report it'll be Barratt at 13 with Eastmond at 12.

Genuinely not sure how I feel about that, on the one hand I understand they want his defence and in particular his defensive leadership which was massively lacking in the third test against the AB's in the summer.

On the other he has a worse attacking skill set then Manu or JJ, he's slower, less physical, hasn't got a step and while he can pass it's pretty rare that he does.

Eastmond at 12 is a good thing but he's just missed a week of contact drills because of the rib injury, will he be fit? Tackling at 12 even with Barrett to help is a physical job, will he even last the game? Ignoring his defence he's going to have his work cut out for him on attack, with Brad at 13 and potentially Farrell (not my pick as he was well off the pace but the coaches favourite) at 10 he's going to be the fulcrum of England's backline play, is he ready and able to do that?