Stuart Lancaster?

First topic message reminder :

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on SL, this is not a knee jerk reaction to the loss to Ireland on Sunday but 'has SL taken us as far as he can?'

For me he has taken a lot of well deserved credit for turning us from 2011 RWC flops/party animals to a squad of players with talent, but ultimately we still lack something when it counts and some of his selections are questionable at times.

Ciao, Ciao Stewie.
The team was unprepared to play a big game.
Worst coaching job and poorest lack or preparation during your tenure.
Abject = Ciao, ciao

SecretFly wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:But it was very predictable how Ireland were going to play that game yet we looked like we had no ideas of how to combat it.  Surely if you are in the position that SL is in he should have had some idea of what to expect himself without getting another coach/tactical genius on board?

I knew how Ireland were going to play so why did England look like they did not?

But how would you have countered it?  High balls from every angle keeping your players very deep, vicious chase on kicks keeping your players away from developing any rhythm, formidable breakdown energy hitting you, again unsettling anything you might have been planning of a running, counter-attacking game?

How should Lancaster have planned it?  Because a lot of what I heard from the fans over the two weeks that Ireland played a predictable boring game that would be easily countered by Vunipola and a handful of lightening fast English backs?

Is that not the gameplan Lancaster came with?  And now he's a fool for thinking it might be enough?

No, I don't think that is the game plan he came with. He got rid of May for Nowell and added in Goode. I think both were intended for the high ball. However, our kick chase (and kicking as part of this) was atrocious. Partly this is because we didn't have a lightning fast back like May. In addition, May has improved a lot in the air, in terms of making it very hard for other teams. I think that the selection only matched half of the tactic, if that makes sense?

That said, I agree with others that when it comes to competing in the air, we're simply not quite as good as Ireland.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ireland are simply better in the air and at the breakdown than England, the coaching team will have known that but acknowledging that fact doesn't mean you can counteract it.

I can accept that Ireland are better in the air, and the cultural basis for that. But the breakdown? There is no excuse for this. It's the one main area of the game I find so frustrating with England. Just when we look like we've cracked it and are really blitzing it to create quick ball...we have a game where we look like we're in slow motion. It'll be blamed on the back-row and Haskell will get dropped, I'd bet my house on it, but the coaching is a problem for me. In particular on Ireland's ball when they were rucking MILES past the ball. There was nothing, no intensity to work back to the breakdown, no nous for a second player to go round and compete afterwards, no replication of it on our ball etc etc.

TightHEAD wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:But it was very predictable how Ireland were going to play that game yet we looked like we had no ideas of how to combat it.  Surely if you are in the position that SL is in he should have had some idea of what to expect himself without getting another coach/tactical genius on board?

I knew how Ireland were going to play so why did England look like they did not?

But how would you have countered it?  High balls from every angle keeping your players very deep, vicious chase on kicks keeping your players away from developing any rhythm, formidable breakdown energy hitting you, again unsettling anything you might have been planning of a running, counter-attacking game?

How should Lancaster have planned it?  Because a lot of what I heard from the fans over the two weeks that Ireland played a predictable boring game that would be easily countered by Vunipola and a handful of lightening fast English backs?

Is that not the gameplan Lancaster came with?  And now he's a fool for thinking it might be enough?

There is always a way, but I admit I don't have all the answers, but then again I'm not a well paid International coach of the biggest rugby playing nation on the planet, saying we will learn from it just simple isn't good enough, SL should have had some ideas of how to beat Ireland,

my 1st idea - would be not to kick the ball back to you if we weren't interested in chasing it,
2nd  - be well disciplined in all areas of the field,
3rd - take points whenever you get a chance.
4th - be tough at the breakdown and make your hit count.

Amen to all 4 points, particularly the first!

Pot Hale wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Nah, just Corbs, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Morgan, Farrell (maybe), Barritt (unfashionable but England’s best 12), Manu, Brown, Care... But England do have depth and it’s no shame to beat (or lose to) them.

So Launchbury, Lawes and Brown then?   Fair enough.  

I don;t agree they'll make a massive difference, but to be fair Pot Care is easily our best 9, Corbs is still marginally better than Marler for me, especially in the scrum, and Morgan was on marginally better form than BV. Then again, Ireland missed Heaslip and Healy.

Hood83 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Nah, just Corbs, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Morgan, Farrell (maybe), Barritt (unfashionable but England’s best 12), Manu, Brown, Care... But England do have depth and it’s no shame to beat (or lose to) them.

So Launchbury, Lawes and Brown then?   Fair enough.  

I don;t agree they'll make a massive difference, but to be fair Pot Care is easily our best 9, Corbs is still marginally better than Marler for me, especially in the scrum, and Morgan was on marginally better form than BV. Then again, Ireland missed Heaslip and Healy.

So you agree on Care, Corbs and Morgan. Surely you would not doubt Launchbury, Lawes , Brown & Manu. That is seven. I would also include Barritt meaning a majority of the starting line-up are second choices.

I'd have Wood in there as well.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Nah, just Corbs, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Morgan, Farrell (maybe), Barritt (unfashionable but England’s best 12), Manu, Brown, Care... But England do have depth and it’s no shame to beat (or lose to) them.

So Launchbury, Lawes and Brown then?   Fair enough.  

I don;t agree they'll make a massive difference, but to be fair Pot Care is easily our best 9, Corbs is still marginally better than Marler for me, especially in the scrum, and Morgan was on marginally better form than BV. Then again, Ireland missed Heaslip and Healy.

So you agree on Care, Corbs and Morgan. Surely you would not doubt Launchbury, Lawes , Brown & Manu. That is seven. I would also include Barritt meaning a majority of the starting line-up are second choices.

Dont forget they were also missing the second choice full back (Foden, formerly good enough to get a Lion cap). Second Choice tighthead in Wilson missing (he has been picked ahead of Cole in the recent past). The 23 let alone the 15 was probably very different to what Lancaster wouldve picked had noone ever got injured. Thats even without looking at guys like fat Armitage.

The squad and potential squad (when you consider guys like Burgess could still jump in) is pretty huge now and the starting 23s have varied massively in Lancasters reign, as they did under previous coaches for the same reasons.

Too many players to pick from, too many injuries and suspensions.

It is quite worrying that after 3 years England still dont have a clue what their best style is, let alone who the best players are to achieve that.
The centers remain an enigma. Fly half a problem, its gone form the unimaginative and brittle Farrell for Ford who cant kick. Youngs and Care both go through phases of being brilliant then awful.

Do you English fans feel that Lancaster has gotten on to Hartley about his indiscipline and warned him about his future conduct? I think that he has and it has affected Hartley's natural aggressive game.

If I was an English fan, I would prefer that Hartley be more aggressive (OK that comes at a cost sometimes) rather than playing the way he does now and not really bringing anything to the game.

He got a hard time for the line out throws but I actually feel that was more down to the line out calls he was getting, they were very high risk calls in those positions England were in.

Nachos Jones wrote:He got a hard time for the line out throws but I actually feel that was more down to the line out calls he was getting, they were very high risk calls in those positions England were in.

Consistent with Tom Youngs copping all the flak though.

I must honestly admit to never really rating Tom Youngs as a hooker LT, he just seems too light for that position to me.

I had a funny thought a while back, if England were playing France and Basteraud was running amok in the midfield then I would consider putting Tom Youngs in the midfield to counter him. I know that sounds really weird but he may not be as quick as other centres but he is not slow either. In fact, I would say that he is quicker than Basteraud. My head works in weird ways sometimes

Vs Basteraud we will miss Manu. The last time they played Manu just took the urine the whole time

Everyone knows my posting history and feelings towards Lancaster, and so however frustrating it is to endure his tenure as head coach, the reality is that even if we had the best coach in the game leading us, I still believe they would struggle given the fundamental structural issue of club versus country and the acute player exhaustion and injury that undoubtedly results from it. Anyone would struggle with the number of injuries we continually, season on season, experience.

Do I think this issue will be resolved as part of next year’s agreement? No, because there isn't the ambition in the English game as a whole to produce a winning national side.

There have been reports of expanding/ring fencing the premiership to 14 teams and so removing promotion/relegation. How this will benefit the national side is uncertain, but what is certain is that our players play to much rugby (club & country), our competitions are a mishmash of competing self interest and that once again the opportunity to exponentially expand the game in England (by winning the world cup) has been bungled by the monetarily focused ship of fools at the rfu.

1, the eps or whatever it is called should be reduced to 23 players who are contracted to play no more than 15 club games including semi's and finals per season,

2, the premiership, 12, 14 or however many teams should become a single fixture competition, no more home and away, that is played to completion before the 6 nations,

3, european competitions to take place after the 6 nations

4, england withdraws from the Lions and instead promotes a northern hemisphere 16 team competition as a means to developing international rugby union in europe and the north as a whole.

I don't seriously expect these changes to be made, but the issue of player welfare/burnout is the crucial factor that must be addressed otherwise everything else is just castles in air. The simple fact is players play to much rugby.

Don’t panic Mr Mainwaring! Look this inexperienced side was never going to go unbeaten. The world was smirking recently that we had less caps in our backline than NZ had in a single player. Then we replace these callow types with even less test experience. Did anyone really think we could turn over a good, experienced, well-drilled Ireland, in Ireland? Fantasy I say. It was a game Ireland just had to win – and they did, well done to them.

Some useful things have come out of it though.

Number 1 is being faster, stronger and more clued-up at the breakdown. So welcome back Launchbury, Lawes, Wood.
Number 2 is (and are you listening Stewie? No didn’t think so) you have to have at least some real pace in the back 3 – somewhere FFS.  So stick with roadrunner May as no-one else has seemed that much better. Then select a slower footballing partner.
Number 3 (and this is gonna hurt some) Barritt is our best 12, there I’ve said it.

A few tips Stewie - stop telling Hartley off, we need his nasty niggle. Get Care back to his former self. If you’re going to select Cips – get him on the pitch more, he looks pretty on the bench but this isn’t a cat-walk. We have no tactical nous in the coaching team, for example if you’re going to kick – kick well, at the right time, and chase well. Look this is all in the schoolboy’s manual of rugby fgs. So maybe employ a coaching team that have read it.

But most of all – stop playing so much test rugby, and just maybe we will be able to field our 1st choice once in a while.

Lets see what happens in the last two games. If we put Scotland and France to the sword we can put the Irish game down to a bad day at the office against the form team in Europe who were really up for it. It is vital we learn some lessons from it though. We have done well vs Ireland before Sunday and can do it again, but we really need to wake up.

I think we can expect 2 wins from the final 2 games even with the same team. I think we can expect Lawes and Brown back at least though. Personally I'd have Twelvetrees back in as I still think we play better with him there than when we don't, he's the best fit for the type of 12 we're looking for but Slade is starting to push and Devoto will too soon (next year). A few key mistakes did for us.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think we can expect 2 wins from the final 2 games even with the same team. I think we can expect Lawes and Brown back at least though. Personally I'd have Twelvetrees back in as I still think we play better with him there than when we don't, he's the best fit for the type of 12 we're looking for but Slade is starting to push and Devoto will too soon (next year). A few key mistakes did for us.

Yes they did. But we do need to find a way to up the breakdown intensity, combat the kicking better, and stop being so stoopid at key moments. Ireland put us under a ferocious amount of pressure and we have to find a way of dealing with it, and turning things around.

As for combating the kicking, we did look dangerous at times running the ball back, but didnt when it was Goode, and we didnt give ourselves enough options.

I also thought it was interesting that on restarts Ford was always putting the ball in the same place, which suggests it was a tactic but to be honest a useless one.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Number 1 is being faster, stronger and more clued-up at the breakdown. So welcome back Launchbury, Lawes, Wood.
Number 2 is (and are you listening Stewie? No didn’t think so) you have to have at least some real pace in the back 3 – somewhere FFS.  So stick with roadrunner May as no-one else has seemed that much better. Then select a slower footballing partner.
Number 3 (and this is gonna hurt some) Barritt is our best 12, there I’ve said it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see Manu starting inside Joseph at some point come the RWC warm up games. Not honestly sure what I'd think of it. On the one hand I hate players picked out of position. However given how long we've been screaming to see some threat across our backline I wouldn't mind seeing Tuilagi and Joseph on the field together.

9.Youngs or Care
10.Ford
11.Nowell
12.Tuilagi
13.Joseph
14.Watson
15.Brown

Expect that is what Bomber is looking at towards the RWC now. I'd agree with you on the pace issue and would really want one of May or Wade in there but at the same time Watson is rapid as well. Nowell will end up a better FB than wing for my money, in fact if we lose Brown to injury he offers a decent like for like replacement.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Nah, just Corbs, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Morgan, Farrell (maybe), Barritt (unfashionable but England’s best 12), Manu, Brown, Care... But England do have depth and it’s no shame to beat (or lose to) them.

So Launchbury, Lawes and Brown then?   Fair enough.  

I don;t agree they'll make a massive difference, but to be fair Pot Care is easily our best 9, Corbs is still marginally better than Marler for me, especially in the scrum, and Morgan was on marginally better form than BV. Then again, Ireland missed Heaslip and Healy.

So you agree on Care, Corbs and Morgan. Surely you would not doubt Launchbury, Lawes , Brown & Manu. That is seven. I would also include Barritt meaning a majority of the starting line-up are second choices.

Sorry was adding to the the ones Pot acknowledged. Yes to Lawes and Launchbury but not by much. What you get is workrate and actually our SR has been pretty decent in this regard. Yes to Brown. No to Manu. People who criticise May for just being a sprinter and not a footballer...well Manu is just a battering ram, sorry. If someone could teach him to pass then fine but I doubt he'll ever be our Nonu now. Barritt, no, I'd have Eastmond though.

king_carlos wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Number 1 is being faster, stronger and more clued-up at the breakdown. So welcome back Launchbury, Lawes, Wood.
Number 2 is (and are you listening Stewie? No didn’t think so) you have to have at least some real pace in the back 3 – somewhere FFS.  So stick with roadrunner May as no-one else has seemed that much better. Then select a slower footballing partner.
Number 3 (and this is gonna hurt some) Barritt is our best 12, there I’ve said it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see Manu starting inside Joseph at some point come the RWC warm up games. Not honestly sure what I'd think of it. On the one hand I hate players picked out of position. However given how long we've been screaming to see some threat across our backline I wouldn't mind seeing Tuilagi and Joseph on the field together.

9.Youngs or Care
10.Ford
11.Nowell
12.Tuilagi
13.Joseph
14.Watson
15.Brown

Expect that is what Bomber is looking at towards the RWC now. I'd agree with you on the pace issue and would really want one of May or Wade in there but at the same time Watson is rapid as well. Nowell will end up a better FB than wing for my money, in fact if we lose Brown to injury he offers a decent like for like replacement.

I would love Tuilagi to work at 12, i just don't see it happening. His pass just isn't good enough. Eastmond at 12 on the other hand, can pass. Someone long ago should have realised that Tuilagi's best asset is crash, bang, wallop - and made him a bruising winger who cuts in like North, or drilled him in his pass like Nonu. As it is, he's an incredible impact sub behind JJ for me.

Haskell did not have a good game, but he seems to get booted quicker than anybody else. Wood is not as a good a player. He is not better at the breakdown, in defence, or carrying.

Haskell is a better carrier and has flashier big hits. For everything else pick Wood.

No 7&1/2 wrote:England probably should have had the try at the end. Too little by then anyway.

Dont think Goode had that bad a game. Certainly better than Watson.

I think people are allowing that one jinking but frankly a bit pointless run from his try line to cloud the fact that he was utterly abysmal under the high ball, poorly positioned, made no impact running and was turned over 6 times, kicked poorly at best, had hands of lead and put in what I genuinely think was his worst performance, in a hardly sparkling catalogue, for England. He did NOT lose us the game. But he was bloody awful

Exiledinborders wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Nah, just Corbs, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Morgan, Farrell (maybe), Barritt (unfashionable but England’s best 12), Manu, Brown, Care... But England do have depth and it’s no shame to beat (or lose to) them.

So Launchbury, Lawes and Brown then?   Fair enough.  

I don;t agree they'll make a massive difference, but to be fair Pot Care is easily our best 9, Corbs is still marginally better than Marler for me, especially in the scrum, and Morgan was on marginally better form than BV. Then again, Ireland missed Heaslip and Healy.

So you agree on Care, Corbs and Morgan. Surely you would not doubt Launchbury, Lawes , Brown & Manu. That is seven. I would also include Barritt meaning a majority of the starting line-up are second choices.

But Care was not picked on form (arguably falsely but he IS available... And not suited to dogfights). Joseph is in better form that Manu has been for some time. Corbs was not ahead of Marler in many's eyes until this defeat, showing our fans' usual incredible fickleness. Neither was Wood ahead of Haskell. I'd take Farrell for this kind of match, the 2 locks and Brown by several miles and consider Morgan but I think it's unfair on Ireland and self-delusional to say it was a second choice team

Manu has no form - he's been injured for ages. cba to go through what he does and doesnt do. But he does score tries, and those are scores which are as much to do with acceleration and running through gaps as much as through people. He is very good at running into people but its not all he does.

Hood83 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Number 1 is being faster, stronger and more clued-up at the breakdown. So welcome back Launchbury, Lawes, Wood.
Number 2 is (and are you listening Stewie? No didn’t think so) you have to have at least some real pace in the back 3 – somewhere FFS.  So stick with roadrunner May as no-one else has seemed that much better. Then select a slower footballing partner.
Number 3 (and this is gonna hurt some) Barritt is our best 12, there I’ve said it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see Manu starting inside Joseph at some point come the RWC warm up games. Not honestly sure what I'd think of it. On the one hand I hate players picked out of position. However given how long we've been screaming to see some threat across our backline I wouldn't mind seeing Tuilagi and Joseph on the field together.

9.Youngs or Care
10.Ford
11.Nowell
12.Tuilagi
13.Joseph
14.Watson
15.Brown

Expect that is what Bomber is looking at towards the RWC now. I'd agree with you on the pace issue and would really want one of May or Wade in there but at the same time Watson is rapid as well. Nowell will end up a better FB than wing for my money, in fact if we lose Brown to injury he offers a decent like for like replacement.

I would love Tuilagi to work at 12, i just don't see it happening. His pass just isn't good enough. Eastmond at 12 on the other hand, can pass. Someone long ago should have realised that Tuilagi's best asset is crash, bang, wallop - and made him a bruising winger who cuts in like North, or drilled him in his pass like Nonu. As it is, he's an incredible impact sub behind JJ for me.

Haskell did not have a good game, but he seems to get booted quicker than anybody else. Wood is not as a good a player. He is not better at the breakdown, in defence, or carrying.

that old chestnut, do you actually watch any Tigers games? Manu CAN pass.

I am beginiing to notice you seem to select any player so long as it's not a Tigers player?

Haskell did not have a good game, but he seems to get booted quicker than anybody else. Wood is not as a good a player. He is not better at the breakdown, in defence, or carrying.

To be fair to Haskell, not many of the team had a good game against Ireland.

Ireland simply did not allow England to play, they was far to strong at the break down than England was, ENGLAND WAS TOO EAGER AT THE BREAK DOWN. Going off side and giving Sexton easy shot at goal.

England need to regroup and learn the lesson, they cannot keep starting slowly and build into the game. They have to come out of the blocks at full speed at put the opposing team on the back foot.

Big question is what will Bomber have to achieve as a minimum at RWC not to get binned?

Gwlad wrote:Big question is what will Bomber have to achieve as a minimum at RWC not to get binned?

A semi...  that they are winning well but that an unfortunate red card takes them out of.

I think that would save him.  Anything less and despite themselves, the momentum of the press and angry ex-players, coaches etc, will see him give way to a coach with more 'genuine' credentials as an International coach.    Not my opinion.  One I glean from listening over the years.
Step up.........*yawn* ................. Jake White as an eternal 'possible'.

Gwlad wrote:Big question is what will Bomber have to achieve as a minimum at RWC not to get binned?

i dont think he will, he said when starting that this world cup would be to early and that 2019 is the one to aim for.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Nah, just Corbs, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Morgan, Farrell (maybe), Barritt (unfashionable but England’s best 12), Manu, Brown, Care... But England do have depth and it’s no shame to beat (or lose to) them.

So Launchbury, Lawes and Brown then?   Fair enough.  

I don;t agree they'll make a massive difference, but to be fair Pot Care is easily our best 9, Corbs is still marginally better than Marler for me, especially in the scrum, and Morgan was on marginally better form than BV. Then again, Ireland missed Heaslip and Healy.

So you agree on Care, Corbs and Morgan. Surely you would not doubt Launchbury, Lawes , Brown & Manu. That is seven. I would also include Barritt meaning a majority of the starting line-up are second choices.

But Care was not picked on form (arguably falsely but he IS available... And not suited to dogfights). Joseph is in better form that Manu has been for some time. Corbs was not ahead of Marler in many's eyes until this defeat, showing our fans' usual incredible fickleness. Neither was Wood ahead of Haskell. I'd take Farrell for this kind of match, the 2 locks and Brown by several miles and consider Morgan but I think it's unfair on Ireland and self-delusional to say it was a second choice team

If you're picking Farrell at 10 then you need Barritt or what is then presumably an attritional gameplan doesn't work with Joseph in the centre, it's horses for courses really. Against the pragmatic Irish team in hindsight Farrell and Barritt were both missed, against Wales or France however you want a more fluid backline.

nathan wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Big question is what will Bomber have to achieve as a minimum at RWC not to get binned?

i dont think he will, he said when starting that this world cup would be to early and that 2019 is the one to aim for.

He said. That's HIS definition of longevity in the job. But he doesn't control his length in office. His bosses and the English media/fans do.

nathan wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Big question is what will Bomber have to achieve as a minimum at RWC not to get binned?

i dont think he will, he said when starting that this world cup would be to early and that 2019 is the one to aim for.

Not his to call is it…can just imagine if i told my boss to wait 4 years for that project due in October….think his response would be Here's your P45, go buy yourself a pint

Depends if you re boss is a realist?

lostinwales wrote:Manu has no form - he's been injured for ages. cba to go through what he does and doesnt do. But he does score tries, and those are scores which are as much to do with acceleration and running through gaps as much as through people. He is very good at running into people but its not all he does.

Joseph has been scoring tries though!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Depends if you re boss is a realist?

You don't become Boss by being a realist but by producing results against the odds….to hear Bomber say 2019 is the aim is , IMO, defeatist at worst and more likely, gamesmanship to portray England as undercooked for 2015. Fact is right now he hasn't even decided on the ingredients for his dinner or what sauce he wants to put on it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Depends if you re boss is a realist?

There have been a lot of realists in England over the last 12 or 13 years. But each time they tend to get shouted down by the masses when things don't go according to plan. The masses and media don't call the shots - but they certainly do produce enough heat to heavily influence the outcome.

I dont think England are favourites for the world cup so why should aiming for something realistic be defeatist? Like you keep saying wer e happy with 2nd lett he big boys fight it out! Only an exit at the group would place Lancaster under serious pressure and even then we re up against 2 quality sides.

Gwlad wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Depends if you re boss is a realist?

You don't become Boss by being a realist but by producing results against the odds….to hear Bomber say 2019 is the aim is , IMO, defeatist at worst and more likely, gamesmanship to portray England as undercooked for 2015. Fact is right now he hasn't even decided on the ingredients for his dinner or what sauce he wants to put on it.

Both defeatist and quite odd. From all that I've seen during the Lancaster era I can't understand where English RWC confidence is coming from. They're good enough to get out of the group of death, and probably top the pool, but I don't reckon they'll be able to cut the mustard in KO games beyond the pool stages.

True again fly. I think a lot see what they want instead of whats there across all nations.

I think the English public, not so much the English fans are begining to think like the NZ public and expect England to win every game they play.

Maybe with the player pool they have that should be the case. but realistictly we all know that is going to happen for a longgggg time yet.

Im not sure we are expecting to win every game Maj, I think we want to see progress without these constant yearly balls ups.

Our breakdown work IS a problem...FACT. The game against NZ a few years back showed what we need to do...be brutal, ruthless and smash anyone in sight. Ive never seen it near that level since.

Our kicking was shockingly naïve, and schoolboyish. Constantly kicking aimless and deep to the opposition is just asking for trouble.

The reality is we are a good side, we have injuries to key players, and others like Hartley look a shadow of the player they are this tournament.

I doubt we'll win the World cup...but then ive never thought we would anyway. I wouldn't maeke massive changes for the rest of this 6n...but I would use the rest of the tournament to try out Slade.
Burrell, Twelvetrees are just not the answer. Barritt (who would balance well for Ford and Joseph) is injured. So give Slade a run out.

I've said it before: It takes about 6 years to produce a WC winning squad based on previous World Cups given no country has won twice in a row*. Woodward didn't win his first and wasn't fired. Why would Lancaster be? He's done a fine job to date. Not a perfect one, but a darned good one.

* NZ might win consecutive WCs - normal rules do not apply to them in Rugby.

We should pick a mostly unchanged side. Injury returners welcome, Ford to start but give Cipriani a run (think that WAS a mistake of Lancaster's on Sunday). I hope and expect to see poor Scotland get an absolute shelling by way of reaction.