Nick Easter called up

Nick Easter called up to replace Billy V.

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/injured-vunipola-replaced-easter-rwc-squad/

Easter Burgess Robshaw back row? Won't happen but could be fun.

I'd be happy with Robshaw, Easter and Wood, with Care at 9 and Burgess at 12. Easter offloading to Care or Burgess - or taking offloads from them - would be fun if nothing else.

It looked to me in his cameo in Paris as if Easter was the man calling the shots and dragging the team back into the fight. He has nothing to lose and two losing RWC campaigns to put behind him.

In a funny sort of way, I think he could be the man that England need right now.

Now that Wood is available, all we need to now know is whether Morgan is fit. If he isn't then you'd assume we'll see Woodshaw and Easter, with Haskell on the bench.

Poorfour wrote:I'd be happy with Robshaw, Easter and Wood, with Care at 9 and Burgess at 12. Easter offloading to Care or Burgess - or taking offloads from them - would be fun if nothing else.

It looked to me in his cameo in Paris as if Easter was the man calling the shots and dragging the team back into the fight. He has nothing to lose and two losing RWC campaigns to put behind him.

In a funny sort of way, I think he could be the man that England need right now.

He is certainly a leader even if he was a rubbish captain. Good point

He'll also truck rubbish ball up all day, even if its only a meter or 2 at a glacial pace each time, and I'd like to see the Australians try to rip the ball off him.

Do we know how well Morgan is recovering?

Vunapola will be a big loss. Wales, SA, England and France have all lost key players to injury already.

A metre or 2 at glacial pace could be devastating if he keeps his hands free and Care/Brown/Robshaw/Burgess keep their wits about them. He's been one of the top offloaders in the AP for nigh on a decade - if England can get someone there to take the ball, it's just as effective as a power run that needs a ruck to recycle the ball.

Poorfour wrote:A metre or 2 at glacial pace could be devastating if he keeps his hands free and Care/Brown/Robshaw/Burgess keep their wits about them. He's been one of the top offloaders in the AP for nigh on a decade - if England can get someone there to take the ball, it's just as effective as a power run that needs a ruck to recycle the ball.

Oh yeah. We have done this before but hes a much underrated player and pace is pretty much the only thing he lacks

He should help out with the scrum too, there's no better 8 for cleaning up scrappy ball at the back of the scrum.

He won't be able to single handedly stop pocock, and his marauding back rowers running rampage on Saturday.

I can see Robshaw Wood and Haskell in the back row

Tough on billy, but as an old man myself I have a grudging admiration for Easter. Certainly  adds  a different dynamic in the back row, if you can use the words Nick Easter and dynamic in the same sentence.

GeordieFalcon wrote:He won't be able to single handedly stop pocock,  and his marauding back rowers running rampage on Saturday.

I dunno. The Fijians couldn't stop the rolling maul but ultimately contained the Aussie back row. Their No 8 that day was Netani Talei, who is 3rd choice No 8 at Quins...

GeordieFalcon wrote:He won't be able to single handedly stop pocock,  and his marauding back rowers running rampage on Saturday.

They still have to stop us.

Hartley

doctor_grey wrote:Hartley

JR Hartley

Nick Easter.  And there is your Captain too....  

A day or two ago people were talking about who possibly could take over Captaincy from Robshaw.  There was a general lack of confidence that anyone could step up.

I instantly thought of Easter but he had a major problem.  He was probably too old now in the eyes of most fans and coaches - and he was most certainly not even in the squad!  So I kept my peace.

Lo and behold, he shows up!   There's your Captain, folks!

I know Easter has been a model player since the 2011 World Cup and has been playing very good and intelligent Rugby for Harlequins.  But, according to the reports, he was one of the cancers in the 2011 England team.  

He might be the best choice as captain of the players on the roster today, but I can't shake that image of him.  

England are in desparation mode.  Bring in Hartley, warts and all.

RugyGuby...good to see you show up. Gatland wants to know if you still have your boots. Every fit man in Wales needs to be ready. And a few in England for that matter.

And lo, on the third day he rose again and ascended into the matchday 23.

gregortree wrote:RugyGuby...good to see you show up. Gatland wants to know if you still have your boots. Every fit man in Wales needs to be ready. And  a few in England for that matter.

I've put my dad on standby. He's 70, regards himself as English and has just had a heart bypass, but he played prop and was born in Wales, so I'm expecting he will get the call, if only as Gatland works his way down the list towards Adam Jones.

gregortree wrote:RugyGuby...good to see you show up. Gatland wants to know if you still have your boots. Every fit man in Wales needs to be ready. And  a few in England for that matter.

I'm too busy coaching under 16's in England Gregor - The cunning plan seems to be working - I'm back for 6 weeks only, nice to catch up with you again as always enjoy our chats

RubyGuby wrote:

gregortree wrote:RugyGuby...good to see you show up. Gatland wants to know if you still have your boots. Every fit man in Wales needs to be ready. And  a few in England for that matter.

I'm too busy coaching under 16's in England Gregor - The cunning plan seems to be working - I'm back for 6 weeks only, nice to catch up with you again as always enjoy our chats

There goes England's 2023 chances.

doctor_grey wrote:I know Easter has been a model player since the 2011 World Cup and has been playing very good and intelligent Rugby for Harlequins.  But, according to the reports, he was one of the cancers in the 2011 England team.  

He might be the best choice as captain of the players on the roster today, but I can't shake that image of him.  

England are in desparation mode.  Bring in Hartley, warts and all.

Actually, no report - at least not one I saw - ever named Easter as one of the cancers. The only thing that was levelled against him was the "£35 grand down the toilet" comment, which was IIRC reported anonymously by a younger player and to which Easter put his hand up and said it was him. But he's always maintained that it was gallows humour - and having met him a few times I can believe that - and Lancaster has only ever said he was worried about Nick's age rather than attitude.

I doubt we will ever know the truth, but I suspect far too much has been read into one comment.

I'd love to see Hartley back as well, but he can't be brought in unless someone else leaves the squad today or tomorrow through injury.

Is Easter now the new Messiah - He'll be a great anchor for 30-50 mins. but this hard working lad is 37 years of age and Aus will be moving this ball around. I'd be tempted to go for broke here and have Haskell involved so that England take the game to Aus.



I'm glad you appreciate the cunning plan Fly

Easter is a much better 8 than Haskell. Good thing is he's also pretty darn good in the lineout. Burgess to cover 6 please then Mr Lancaster.

"I'd love to see Hartley back as well, but he can't be brought in unless someone else leaves the squad today
or tomorrow through injury."

Time to knobble Wigglesworth in Training me thinks?

I agree Easter is a good player and its a bit late to bring in Kvesic etc but still.

How do England hope to combat Hooper and Pocock when they have a back 5 forwards of carbon copy Ivan Drago's.
Not like they're getting the nudge against all in the scrum to put AUS heavily on the backfoot now. When you have Youngs and Parling don't expect to destroy your opposition upfront.

Lancaster simply lacks vision to win such games. I can imagine his reasons come discussion time with coaches are very similar to an old blackadder sketch...

Melchett: Now, Field Marshal Haig has formulated a brilliant tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field
Blackadder: Would this brilliant plan involve us climbing over the top of our trenches and walking, very slowly towards the enemy?
Darling: How did you know that Blackadder? It's classified information
Blackadder: It's the same plan we used last time, and the seventeen times before that
Melchett: E-e-exactly! And that is what is so brilliant about it. It will catch the watchful Hun totally off guard. Doing exactly what we've done eighteen times before will be the last thing they expect us to do this time.

We had Wales on toast fa. I'm expecting similar against Aus and hopefully with a slightly different midfield.

Scrum yes but not the ruck. Thought Wales if anything got an even deal on that front.

AUS are better in the scrum then the WAL team Gatland put out last Saturday. I don't see a Sheridan vs. Dunning scenario occurring.

fa0019 wrote:I agree Easter is a good player and its a bit late to bring in Kvesic etc but still.

How do England hope to combat Hooper and Pocock when they have a back 5 forwards of carbon copy Ivan Drago's.
Not like they're getting the nudge against all in the scrum to put AUS heavily on the backfoot now. When you have Youngs and Parling don't expect to destroy your opposition upfront.

Lancaster simply lacks vision to win such games. I can imagine his reasons come discussion time with coaches are very similar to an old blackadder sketch...

Melchett: Now, Field Marshal Haig has formulated a brilliant tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field
Blackadder: Would this brilliant plan involve us climbing over the top of our trenches and walking, very slowly towards the enemy?
Darling: How did you know that Blackadder? It's classified information
Blackadder: It's the same plan we used last time, and the seventeen times before that
Melchett: E-e-exactly! And that is what is so brilliant about it. It will catch the watchful Hun totally off guard. Doing exactly what we've done eighteen times before will be the last thing they expect us to do this time.

Australia do not suddenly have a championship winning scrum. They have a better scrum than they had before but arguably had more problems against Fiji than we did, and for all the good it did us Youngs and Parling were part of a scrum that had Wales marching backwards on a regular basis. Plus the fact that their no.1 fatty is now out of the RWC, and their backrow are all of the lightweight types they will have trouble in the scrum. It is all about balance, and Australia have gone for more pace and breakdown at the expense of the set piece (and arguably carrying in the tight considering who they have lost). Just because they have picked two 7's it doesn't mean they have two extra players on the pitch, and if we protect the ball properly they may end up wishing they had more muscle. They still have the electric backs and turnover specialists. It may work for them it may not, but our record against them is pretty good.

RubyGuby wrote:"I'd love to see Hartley back as well, but he can't be brought in unless someone else leaves the squad today
or tomorrow through injury."

Time to knobble Wigglesworth in Training me thinks?

No, please knobble Barritt in training Ruby.

Well it could be the perfect storm at the weekend, 2 open sides on the rampage through our pack. Don't think it will happen though. i'd be surprised at this moment in time shoudl Aus get the best of us in the pack.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We had Wales on toast fa. I'm expecting similar against Aus and hopefully with a slightly different midfield.

Who would you play anyhow 7.5 in midfield?

Can you drop Farrell after his performance? Can you keep Barritt?

I'd say the best option is Farrell, Burgess & Joseph/Slade. It would be massive to drop Farrell and stupid to not drop Barritt.

lostinwales wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I agree Easter is a good player and its a bit late to bring in Kvesic etc but still.

How do England hope to combat Hooper and Pocock when they have a back 5 forwards of carbon copy Ivan Drago's.
Not like they're getting the nudge against all in the scrum to put AUS heavily on the backfoot now. When you have Youngs and Parling don't expect to destroy your opposition upfront.

Lancaster simply lacks vision to win such games. I can imagine his reasons come discussion time with coaches are very similar to an old blackadder sketch...

Melchett: Now, Field Marshal Haig has formulated a brilliant tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field
Blackadder: Would this brilliant plan involve us climbing over the top of our trenches and walking, very slowly towards the enemy?
Darling: How did you know that Blackadder? It's classified information
Blackadder: It's the same plan we used last time, and the seventeen times before that
Melchett: E-e-exactly! And that is what is so brilliant about it. It will catch the watchful Hun totally off guard. Doing exactly what we've done eighteen times before will be the last thing they expect us to do this time.

Australia do not suddenly have a championship winning scrum. They have a better scrum than they had before but arguably had more problems against Fiji than we did, and for all the good it did us Youngs and Parling were part of a scrum that had Wales marching backwards on a regular basis. Plus the fact that their no.1 fatty is now out of the RWC, and their backrow are all of the lightweight types they will have trouble in the scrum. It is all about balance, and Australia have gone for more pace and breakdown at the expense of the set piece (and arguably carrying in the tight considering who they have lost). Just because they have picked two 7's it doesn't mean they have two extra players on the pitch, and if we protect the ball properly they may end up wishing they had more muscle. They still have the electric backs and turnover specialists. It may work for them it may not, but our record against them is pretty good.

No but they won't get marched either... and thats what england need to do to combat their superior backrow.

RubyGuby wrote:Is Easter now the new Messiah - He'll be a great anchor for 30-50 mins. but this hard working lad is 37 years of age and Aus will be moving this ball around. I'd be tempted to go for broke here and have Haskell involved so that England take the game to Aus.



I'm glad you appreciate the cunning plan Fly

Ah but Easter keeps going all game because the pace of the game does not affect him. He moves at the same speed regardless. The trick is that he uses some kind of quantum inverter technology to ensure the ball is almost always where he is at any time

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We had Wales on toast fa. I'm expecting similar against Aus and hopefully with a slightly different midfield.

Who would you play anyhow 7.5 in midfield?

Can you drop Farrell after his performance? Can you keep Barritt?

I'd say the best option is Farrell, Burgess & Joseph/Slade. It would be massive to drop Farrell and stupid to not drop Barritt.

Farrell or Ford are both neck and neck but I would play to our strengths and have Ford. Barritt looks out of sorts not even offering his solid defence, at fault for Wales try for me and adding nothing in attack. From us looking like scoring tries at will almost we look to have gone back to the start of Lancaster's reign when everything was laid at Farrells door. Joseph or Slade are a neccessity. I can see him keeping Barritt though.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We had Wales on toast fa. I'm expecting similar against Aus and hopefully with a slightly different midfield.

Who would you play anyhow 7.5 in midfield?

Can you drop Farrell after his performance? Can you keep Barritt?

I'd say the best option is Farrell, Burgess & Joseph/Slade. It would be massive to drop Farrell and stupid to not drop Barritt.

Agree with that. The one worry I do have with Burgess is that when he does 'straighten the line' and smash through the Australian centers, which he will, is that he will be isolated for a couple of seconds when he does go down which is where the australians will rip the ball off him and counterattack. Otherwise they will learn to hate him.

I think he has to go with
10 Ford
12 Burgess
13 Joseph (if fit) or Slade

I think Lancaster is going to end up playing the side V Aus that he should have played V Wales and vice versa. He's put himself in a bit of a pickle now. The creativity would have scored through the gaps in the welsh defence and the power would be better at containing Aus and keeping it tight. I think he's allowing himself to become influenced externally. There is so much unfamiliarity in the backs whist Eastmond, Cipriani and Burrell are watching on TV ??????

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We had Wales on toast fa. I'm expecting similar against Aus and hopefully with a slightly different midfield.

Who would you play anyhow 7.5 in midfield?

Can you drop Farrell after his performance? Can you keep Barritt?

I'd say the best option is Farrell, Burgess & Joseph/Slade. It would be massive to drop Farrell and stupid to not drop Barritt.

Farrell or Ford are both neck and neck but I would play to our strengths and have Ford. Barritt looks out of sorts not even offering his solid defence, at fault for Wales try for me and adding nothing in attack. From us looking like scoring tries at will almost we look to have gone back to the start of Lancaster's reign when everything was laid at Farrells door. Joseph or Slade are a neccessity. I can see him keeping Barritt though.

Barritt has clearly not recovered fully from his injury during the season. Nor has Cole for that matter. Both need to sit. Hartley throwing to Lawes and Wood is a winning combination. Won't happen, though, for the obvious reasons.

If Easter is back there I would use him simply as a force at the breakdown. Keep the ball or slow down opposition ball, for as long as he can last. If Barritt is dropped, then bring in......who? Burrell?
Burrell and Burgess in the mid-field? At least it wikll be good on defense.

Thought Cole was very good vs Wales personally. Burrell isn't in the squad. I'd go the same as GF.

RubyGuby wrote:I think Lancaster is going to end up playing the side V Aus that he should have played V Wales and vice versa. He's put himself in a bit of a pickle now. The creativity would have scored through the gaps in the welsh defence and the power would be better at containing Aus and keeping it tight. I think he's allowing himself to become influenced externally. There is so much unfamiliarity in the backs whist Eastmond, Cipriani and Burrell are watching on TV ??????

I think Ruby has a big point. Lancaster got sidetracked (and spooked) by the master of under-the-skin lobotomisation (yes, neologism), Gats.
It was a card game for three years and, in the end, just as they were about to declare, Lancaster lost his nerve and folded. Yes, his side were winning. But I have a feeling the method used wasn't needed and the chances are they would have been leading by more had he stuck to his original rhythms.

SecretFly wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:I think Lancaster is going to end up playing the side V Aus that he should have played V Wales and vice versa. He's put himself in a bit of a pickle now. The creativity would have scored through the gaps in the welsh defence and the power would be better at containing Aus and keeping it tight. I think he's allowing himself to become influenced externally. There is so much unfamiliarity in the backs whist Eastmond, Cipriani and Burrell are watching on TV ??????

I think Ruby has a big point.  Lancaster got sidetracked (and spooked) by the master of under-the-skin lobotomisation (yes, neologism), Gats.  
It was a card game for three years and, in the end, just as they were about to declare, Lancaster lost his nerve and folded.  Yes, his side were winning.  But I have a feeling the method used wasn't needed and the chances are they would have been leading by more had he stuck to his original rhythms.

Problem is we'll never know (and the JJ injury didn't help). No doubt we would be here stuck in a similar conversation with lots of 'if only he'd picked Burgess and Farrell'

But the point is not really the result - it's more to do with psychology. Lancaster blinked under the pressure - and by blinking he made virtually his entire squad stop and second guess themselves.

"Why was what we were doing up to now supposed to be so right and now, for the major game, we're being told it's the wrong plan completely?" I don't care by how little or by how much - it knocked his players out of a building mental rhythm.

SecretFly wrote:But the point is not really the result - it's more to do with psychology.  Lancaster blinked under the pressure - and by blinking he made virtually his entire squad stop and second guess themselves.  

"Why was what we were doing up to now supposed to be so right and now, for the major game, we're being told it's the wrong plan completely?"  I don't care by how little or by how much - it knocked his players out of a building mental rhythm.

Other than bringing on Ford for Burgess (plus whatever he said at half time) I am not sure what else he did that did so. I actually think the welsh injuries also knocked us out of rhythm (plus Biggar's kicking didn't help). It was a crap result in a game which, going from the first half we should have won and won well. That we didn't was down to a combination of factors including Wales not rolling over like they should have, and injuries to Youngs and BV. I am not sure if Wales actually got into the England 22 other than the once , but with kickable penalties and Biggar on form it didnt matter. It did all show that physically we are a very good team. Mentally I am not so sure....

The starting team was the blink.

For me, the game was obviously a classic because of the two combatants, the high emotion and it being a very important WC game.

But the game itself, to me, my own personal opinion, was that it was messy and disjointed.  And I think that is exactly what Gatland would have wanted to give him enough room to cause mischief with his version of off-the-cuff counter-attacking rugby - and those Welsh boys are pretty damn handy when a game loses structure and it becomes a bit of an Every-Man-For-Himself game.  The Welsh are actually one of the best sides for preying on games that lose structure.

I think Ford would have given England more attacking bite and kept the pressure on Wales by keeping the English more focused on a consistent rhythm.  

But like you say, we'll never know.

lostinwales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:But the point is not really the result - it's more to do with psychology.  Lancaster blinked under the pressure - and by blinking he made virtually his entire squad stop and second guess themselves.  

"Why was what we were doing up to now supposed to be so right and now, for the major game, we're being told it's the wrong plan completely?"  I don't care by how little or by how much - it knocked his players out of a building mental rhythm.

Other than bringing on Ford for Burgess (plus whatever he said at half time) I am not sure what else he did that did so. I actually think the welsh injuries also knocked us out of rhythm (plus Biggar's kicking didn't help). It was a crap result in a game which, going from the first half we should have won and won well. That we didn't was down to a combination of factors including Wales not rolling over like they should have, and injuries to Youngs and BV. I am not sure if Wales actually got into the England 22 other than the once , but with kickable penalties and Biggar on form it didnt matter. It did all show that physically we are a very good team. Mentally I am not so sure....

...which is exactly what Easter brings to the party. Big rugby brain and has been in exactly this pressure situation before - and prevailed.

Where Lancaster blinked was in not using his subs creatively. The initial gameplan worked, but it looked like he subbed them according to a predetermined plan, rather than adapting to the circumstances. When the Welsh midfield became Roberts and North, keeping Burgess on would have been a smart play, even if it meant taking Barritt off and putting Farrell at 13 (where, as I recall, he's played a fair bit for Sarries).

SecretFly wrote:For me, the game was obviously a classic because of the two combatants, the high emotion and it being a very important WC game.

But the game itself, to me, my own personal opinion, was that it was messy and disjointed.  And I think that is exactly what Gatland would have wanted to give him enough room to cause mischief with his version of off-the-cuff counter-attacking rugby - and those Welsh boys are pretty damn handy when a game loses structure and it becomes a bit of an Every-Man-For-Himself game.  The Welsh are actually one of the best sides for preying on games that lose structure.

I think Ford would have given England more attacking bite and kept the pressure on Wales by keeping the English more focused on a consistent rhythm.  

But like you say, we'll never know.

You are right in that the 2nd half was mostly an unholy mess but I think Wales are still looking fairly blunt in attack. I think a lot more of the 'structural' criticisms England are getting would be a lot more justified if Wales had won by a margin with a hatfull of tries. But they most definitely did not.