Lancaster Talks Selection Policy

http://talksport.com/rugby-union/exclusive-lancaster-burgess-has-time-make-englands-rugby-world-cup-squad-141130127004

Brian Moore had Stuart Lancaster on his Talksport programme where Moore asked him about the factors influencing his selections. Moore wanted to know how past credit and current form were balanced, and to what extent the door was still open to other players who hadn't featured much under him.

Lancaster said form was a factor for him. It's the reason Roko got called up, why Myler got the nod over Cipriani, and why George Ford is very much in the running.

Lancaster had an interesting take on the fly half position. He said that he had always wanted to play Ford on tour but injury prevented it. His reason for not wanting him to take the field in the first game this season against the All Blacks is that he had not been in camp long enough to know the gameplan and all the calls. It sounds very much like Lancaster intended to play Myler but, when he pulled up lame, Owen Farrell was the only one fit and up to speed with everything. That shows how much value the England set-up places on being fully involved with the pre-match build up.

As far as selection for the Boks goes, Lancaster decided to see whether that team could redeem itself, so made no changes other than an enforced one to Roko. To some extent, you can understand the thinking: he's trying to see what a degree of stability does. After all, he's accused of chopping and changing, and Moore put that very observation to him in the interview. On the other hand, he already indicated that Farrell was perhaps not the optimum choice for the first match, so you wonder why he needed a second bite.

Come the third match, Lancaster said he decided performances were not up to the mark, so he made his changes. The players who were given a second chance didn't, on the whole, repay the faith. Farrell, of course, got another run in the centre and I can only assume that Lancaster and his coaches didn't want to leave Ford on his own. Alternatively, they decided that Eastmond, while doing nothing wrong, had missed too much training because of his knock. Roko didn't get back in the team because Lancaster decided Watson had taken his chance, and deserved another go.

He doesn't discuss why Twelvetrees won selection for the final game. From what he has said, however, I suppose it could have been down to one or more of several factors. It might be because Lancaster wanted to demote Farrell but felt Ford still needed a playmaker around him. Alternatively, he actively wanted to see if Twelvetrees could rediscover his Six Nations form, and always intended to look at him in this round of games.

When Moore was pushing him to say how he would handle a situation where everyone was fit and in good form, Lancaster pointed out that he has never faced that situation. Moore wanted to know whether Lancaster was planning to pick a backline for the Six Nations and give them a run. Lancaster replied that it would be easy to do that if they played well. but he would make changes if they didn't. When Moore put it to him that it was difficult players to work in a situation when the next performance could make or break them, Lancaster made his point that he did stick with players and had given the same side two matches at the start before making changes.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

He seems to constantly be stuck with quality players (mostly in the backs) coming into the side and underperforming. He then has to make the call to either stick with them through adversity and hope it pays off or dump them and bring some one else in.

It's worth noting all this is happening in the backs. In the forwards new players are fitted in far more seamlessly. We've gone through a shed load of props but you'd hardly tell, our scrum can always be counted on no matter who's there. Likewise locks drop like flies but it barely ruffles our lineout, the backrow's been stable to be honest but when Hask, Kvesic or Johnson have had to come in they've all performed well.

This leads me to think it's not Lancaster's selections, or the players. But the game plan and the coaching in the backs that's the problem. We must be asking these guys to do stuff they'd not usually do, and their struggling with that, then that's having a knock on effect with the other backs.

Take Care's two games this AI's. He'd just been playing himself into form at Quins by making breaks, running with the ball and raising Quins tempo. He comes to England at perhaps 80% and rather then keep doing the good stuff that's seen him get better since the start of the season he's instructed to play to his weakest skill, kicking for territory. Unsurprisingly he looks uncomfortable both games and while he does do some good kicks, the majority aren't, at the same time any runs that he makes aren't supported as his 10 is injured, unfit, mentally not match sharp and the opposite style of player to him anyway.

Just one player but I think it's happening across a lot more of the team.

It sounds like Lancaster is making few allowances for the particular strengths of individual players. If you want the spot, then you've got to do what the coaches want.

In a way, that's how New Zealand tend to operate and we know Lancaster admires their set-up. Central contracts tend to permit that but Lancaster perhaps feels that England need to find a way to do the same within their own system. It explains his reluctance to reach outside the squad when players go down.

English clubs, unlike the New Zealand franchises, aren't run primarily with a view to preparing players for national duty. There are a range of styles, and different teams accommodating different types of players.

When I heard Lancaster speaking about giving the starting XV a second chance against the Boks, I couldn't help wondering whether he wouldn't be better off selecting players who complement each other instead. Sure enough, he then decided against selecting Eastmond for either of the matches where his club colleague Ford is played.

That sounds mad, unless Lancaster has decided that all players have to play the desired style, and must be able to slot in alongside everyone else. If that's what he is doing, then I can't say I agree with it but I understand it a bit better.

Yappysnap It's not as if Care has been in barnstorming form this season and it's England that has dragged him down!

As for Care, he played well in the 6 nations with the same 10.

The way I see it - both 9 and 10 are out of form which doesn't help either player.

Problem with Lancaster's backlines in general have been a lack of balance. It's not rocket science.

beshocked wrote:Yappysnap It's not as if Care has been in barnstorming form this season and it's England that has dragged him down!

As for Care, he played well in the 6 nations with the same 10.

The way I see it - both 9 and 10 are out of form which doesn't help either player.

Problem with Lancaster's backlines in general have been a lack of balance. It's not rocket science.

Not helped by an inability to get any continuity of selection and form. Care and Farrell were rock solid picks during the 6Ns, but both have subsequently lost form. Last year's AIs and 6Ns saw selection of Yarde, Ashton, May and Nowell on the wings, and it is only this series with May and Watson looking to have taken their opportunities that the calls for picking (e.g.) Wade are fading.

As I put elsewhere, if I've counted correctly, SL has only picked Manu to start at 13 once in the last 15 Tests (plus one start at wing and a 20 minute sub appearance in the last 6Ns). Burrell did fine as his replacement last 6Ns but was injured this autumn, so we've been missing our top two choices at 13. Clearly, the selection of Joel Tompkins at 13 in last year's AIs turned out to be a waste of time with his return to RL, so this series left us with few options - either play a guy with test expereince at 12 as 13 or give Joseph the chance. Given the initial selection of Eastmond at 12 and a first start to the winger at 14 in both the first 2 Tests, it made sense to be somewhat conservative and go with Barritt at 13 in the knowledge that he wasn't going to be run through.

OK, selection at 12 is something of a lucky dip at present -I doubt any of Eastmond, Farrell and 12trees will be the starter there if all our centre options are fit for the start of the 6Ns

Pretty much the only constant over the last couple of seasons has been Brown in the 15 jersey, and while I know there are some criticisms of him (particularly in his joining the attacking line), I think he had a decent AI series following of course and outstanding 6Ns (and a slightly difficult summer tour), and it would be harsh to be looking to change him.

As it stands, I think we will line up in Cardiff with the following back line if all are fit and on some sort of form:

9 - Care
10 - Ford
11 - May
12 - Barritt
13 - Tuillagi
14 - Watson
15 - Brown

Looks potentially a lot better than some of the line-ups we've had over the last year or so - defensive stability with Barrit, some serious bosh in the centres, pace and elusive running out wide, a 10 who can offer some threat ball in hand and play the tactical kicking game and a 9 who will hopefully rediscover how to up the tempo of our play.

dummy half Lancaster chose Care and Farrell when quite clearly neither are playing well. It was two poor decisions.


I could be quite pleased with that backline.

Only Care if he's in form - if not then Youngs.

Alternately wouldn't be against seeing Burrell replacing Barritt or Tuilagi.

You might say why replace Tuilagi - I see Tuilagi as an immense attacking weapon but he's never been particularly good at bringing wingers into the match.


As for the wingers - need to pick those who are in form and scoring tries for the 6 nations.

I like that backline Dummy Half.

Whilst i have been critical of Lancaster at times...i do appreciate he has been unlucky with injuries and loss of form etc.

Its unlucky to miss players like Corbs, Cole, Croft for long term and barely get the use of Manu etc etc.

We've all been there (are there) though, Geordie. Injuries and loss of form.

SecretFly wrote:We've all been there (are there) though, Geordie. Injuries and loss of form.

Of course, it's a physical game so it's unusual that you get your notional first choice XV on the pitch (actually, one of the areas England 2003 were quite lucky with was how often they were able to get very close to their best team out). Soemtimes injuries don't hurt a team much and give opportunity for back ups to get good experience and prove their quality, as Marler and Wilson have done as our props in the last several months - I still think if Corbs and Cole are fit and on form they get picked first, but have no serious worries in their absence.

England do though seem to 'specialise' in losing lots of players from one position per series. Last AIs it was centres, 6Ns was wingers and this AIs it's been centres again (and 2nd row to some extent). It gets difficult when you are down to the 5th and 6th choice players for some positions, no matter how much strength in depth you appear to have on paper.

So I think at the moment England could do with a bit of luck with injuries and form, so that we can put out something approaching our notionally best back line. Something we've been particularly short of in the last couple of seasons.

The best England's backs have been under Lancaster was last year's 6N. Why? He picked the same backs every game (because he was able to) and they were (mostly) on form.

Continuity of selection has been a huge problem in the backs. Possibly it's easier for forwards to "gel"? Also England have had fewer injuries in the forwards in general, and seem to have greater strength in depth there.

I'm not sure what the solution is, you can't chop and change every match, but at the same time you can't keep picking players who aren't performing either.

For me there's not much in it between the half-backs, so I'd pick whoever's playing better as we approach the 6N and stick with that. Care/Youngs and Farrell/Ford are all very good players when on form, so hopefully Care and Farrell in particular can get back to their best.

Centres are where the real problem (still) is. If Tuilagi is fit (at the moment a big if, what is it with Leicester players always - seemingly - injured anyway?) then he should start, huge weapon. I would really have liked to see how 12T played alongside him, but for me 12T's performance vs Aus just wasn't good enough. I'd be more tempted by Eastmond, who should bring the wingers into play more. Failing that, Barritt had a very good series, and I wouldn't mind him keeping his spot.

May and Watson settled pretty well on the wings, though would like to see them involved more.

Brown got better as the AIs went on, and is still a nailed-on starter I think.

I agree Brown is the nailed on starter, but i would like him to just think sometimes when he counter attacks and when not to.

The odd time he does have the ability to put us in a wee bit of bother, and he has a monstrous boot...in times when a counter just isnt on, id like to see him knock the leather of the thing....

beshocked wrote:dummy half Lancaster chose Care and Farrell when quite clearly neither are playing well. It was two poor decisions.


I could be quite pleased with that backline.

Only Care if he's in form - if not then Youngs.

Alternately wouldn't be against seeing Burrell replacing Barritt or Tuilagi.

You might say why replace Tuilagi - I see Tuilagi as an immense attacking weapon but he's never been particularly good at bringing wingers into the match.


As for the wingers - need to pick those who are in form and scoring tries for the 6 nations.

That'll be Nowell, then.

beshocked wrote:...Problem with Lancaster's backlines in general have been a lack of balance. It's not rocket science...

I think that has been a problem but, from what Lancaster says, he's approaching the issue from a different perspective. Like you, I've always wondered what the point is of playing Ashton if you don't let him do what he does best.

It looks to me as if Lancaster has decided on a general style of play - I'm not sure I'd go as fas as to call it a gameplan - and he wants all England players to master it. If they bring something on top of that basic requirement, then all the better, but if they can't deliver the basics, then they won't get a run.

Lancaster isn't necessarily seeking balance, then. He doesn't want to have to change the style of play because people are injured. If players deliver what he asks, everybody should be capable of playing with everyone else.

I can see the logic but the execution is a different matter.

Incidentally, i think it's tough to criticize Lancaster for playing Care. He wasn't so out of form, or Youngs in form, that he deserved to lose the shirt for the All Blacks match.