England Player Ratings

First topic message reminder :

My ratings for the Argentina game.

1. Joe Marler - 6/10 - A good solid performance from the third choice prop, coped well in the scrum and was fairly busy in the loose carrying the ball hard in the tight exchanges. Didn't really make any stand out contributions though in the way Corbs can do.
2. Dylan Hartley - 8/10 - A MoM display from Hartley, ran well, tackled like a machine (8 completed) beat two defenders while making plenty of yards ball in hand and actually took the ball at pace. I think apart from one blip his lineout work was perfect as well. Just needs to work on his break down skills to be up there with the best.
3. Roger Wilson - 6/10 - Another solid display from the other prop. Was put under a fair bit of pressure by scrummaging machine Ayerza early on and gave away a pen there but otherwise was incredibly busy in defense (10 tackles completed). Didn't offer enough ball in hand (but look at the size of him) and lacks Coles breakdown work.
4. Joe Launchberry - 8/10 - The other contender for MoM Launchberry seemed to be taking what ever Robshaw was on as he was everywhere. Linked well with the backs (5 passes), carried well (7 runs), put in his tackles (12!) and worked well in the mauls. A brilliant display from the youngster.
5. Courtney Lawes - 6/10 - A quieter game from Lawes this week but still pretty effective. Not sure if he is the best for carrying the ball in traffic but that seemed to be his role as foil to Launchberry, he took the majority of lineouts well and called a good variety of moves. Has to be given a bit of praise for Englands good mauling and for two big tackles that forced turnovers. Still needs to improve on his carrying though which is weak.
6. Tom Wood - 5/10 - A busy shift from Wood which didn't seem to achieve much at times, the backrow as a unit started impressively but dropped off. Wood got through plenty of tackles (13) but didn't turn over enough (1 turn over) and gave away the most penalties of any player (3) a poor game by his standards as he just struggled to make an impact.
7. Chris Robshaw - 6.5/10 - Much like his backrow colleague Robshaw looked busy for the majority of the game but didn't really have much of an effect other then in defense where his 20(!!) tackles make him the top tackler in the team. He did make a fair few runs but didn't achieve a single turn over all game. Also struggled to get his team back in the game in the second half.
8. Billy Vunipola -6.5/10 - His carrying wasn't quite as destructive as last week but still he made the most yards of any forward (45) and nearly all of them put his team on the front foot. Worked well at the back of the scrum but didn't offer much in defense and struggled to really make a big impact on the game.
9. Lee Dickson - 5/10 - Made a stunningly poor 3m's carrying the ball, he also only made 2 tackles all game. On the plus side his passing was pretty good this week and he was quick to the rucks. Still is not a complete package and has to take some of the blame for the lack of focus in the second half.
10. Owen Farrell - 5/10 - A pretty subdued game from the young fly half. His kicking from hand was poor and he didn't really threaten too much ball in hand. But he did tackle well and help turn ball over. Still not the comlete package and has to take a lot of the blame for the England backs total lack of cohesion and precision in attack.
11. Ben Foden -5/10- Fairly anonymous all game but then he got a lot less ball then the other back three players. He worked well with Brown at least and provides more assurity in the backs with his all round game.
12. Billy Twelvetrees -6.5/10- A mixed game from Billy, took his try really wel running a fine line, passed and ran to better effect as well and tackled his opposite number all day. Still too many dodgy passes though and he needs to look for space to run into more often.
13. Joel Tomkins -4/10- Tomkins can be forgiven a little as it was only his second game for England, but he's just anonymous at the moment. He managed 3 tackles all game and missed 1, conceded a pen and passed 3 times. Hopefully he'll grow into the England setup but right now he's a passenger. Remember Manu's contributions in his first games for Eng? Two tries in two matches.
14. Chris Ashton -6/10- Not as bad a game as many would like to make out for Ashton. He did royally ruin the first try attempt and if the TMO had been used he may not have got the second either. But he was busy for once on attack and looked to make positive contributions to the team. Made 6 tackles and missed 2 so his defense is still wonky but it was definitely a step in the right direction. He also managed 83m's ball in hand, second only to Brown.
15. Mike Brown -7/10- Another assured performance from the full back. He linked well with his back three compatriotes and took all the high balls well except for one. Made his tackles and the most clean breaks of any player (1!).

So what do you think? All in all a pretty solid performance by England, lots to work on but they'll be pleased at getting 40 minutes of quality rugby in.

Big concerns at the moment are the lack of turn overs and impact by the forwards, in particular the backrow are industrious but didn't do anything to change the tempo of the game. No key turn overs, no scintillating breaks or busts either. Look at guys like Easter for Quins or Manoa for Saints, they raise the whole team with big runs off the scrum or a massive hit.

Also the total lack of clean breaks. Before Morgan's break we had managed 1 all game. That is truly terrible and the half backs have to take most of the blame here for not creating opportunites. Too often our backs got the ball passed out to them with the Puma's defense drifting comfortably without any worries, they then just shifted it wider still until they got to the edge of the pitch.

Not yet, and I know this doesn't help the here and now, but I can see Launchbury being a future England captain.

The Franks brothers are far from world class, Ben Franks is a good prop who is and always has been a good cover of the bench. Owen Franks is very good in the loose but not a very strong scrummager though with the like of Adam, Figallo, Mas and Cencus Johnstone ahead of him.
Healy is a great prop as well but lack sin the scrummaging department. Bets loosehead in world rugby at this time is Ayerza, does the basics very well and is at the top in the scrummaging scales. A beast of a loosehead

A tough game to rate players for due to the complete change in momentum in the second half. As such it's unsurprising to see some varying scores but here's my best shot.

1.Marler - 6
2.Hartley - 8
3.Wilson - 6
4.Launchberry - 7
5.Lawes - 6
6.Wood - 6 - Busy all game but gave away a few silly penalties
7.Robshaw - 6.5
8.Vunipola - 5.5 - Solid first half but struggled in the second when the Arg back row kicked on a bit

9.Dickson - 6 - A very different player to Youngs/Care but when given the chance to give his backs quick service he usually delivered. Kicking was still average though
10.Farrell - 5

11.Foden - 6 - Didn't get much chance to shine but looked good when he did and linked well with Brown
12.Twelvetrees - 6.5 - Good in patches and bad in patches but looked to show his distribution by coming in at 1st receiver and taking the ball to the line. A promising performance.
13.Tomkins - 4
14.Ashton - 4
15.Brown - 7

one thing i havent seen mentioned is Dickson's kicking, i thought it was pretty bad at times. what did others think?

His kicking, passing and decision making were sub standard throughout. He's not cut out for Int rugby.

I only really noticed that charge down. Overall I thought Dickson was worth a look but on balance I'd be happier with Youngs/Care.

stub wrote:I only really noticed that charge down. Overall I thought Dickson was worth a look but on balance I'd be happier with Youngs/Care.

If Youngs or Care start would you want the other on the bench (to offer a similar style and impact, running etc) or Dickson to enable a different option if necessary. Would Dickson be better to close out a tight game in the last 20?

Cyril wrote:

stub wrote:I only really noticed that charge down. Overall I thought Dickson was worth a look but on balance I'd be happier with Youngs/Care.

If Youngs or Care start would you want the other on the bench (to offer a similar style and impact, running etc) or Dickson to enable a different option if necessary. Would Dickson be better to close out a tight game in the last 20?

The Queen herself could start and I won't ruddy matter if our runners take the ball standing still. Youngs, Care, Dickson cannot be successful if we are stationary.
This is coaching. This is captain. And based upon this point alone - they are failing.

Hypothetically (and I still disagree, but can see where you are coming from) if we were to change captains, and Wood is deemed too similar to Robshaw, could Parling or Cole or one of the 9s captain? I suppose the 9s are too uncertain as to which is starting but captaincy could help Youngs or Care become better players, I think, Cole and Corbs are our most nailed on forward outside of Robshaw and Wood and Parling seems like he could captain. However, I agree with Doc that I would say Hartley out of the options (in this hypothetical situation)

doctor_grey wrote:

Cyril wrote:

stub wrote:I only really noticed that charge down. Overall I thought Dickson was worth a look but on balance I'd be happier with Youngs/Care.

If Youngs or Care start would you want the other on the bench (to offer a similar style and impact, running etc) or Dickson to enable a different option if necessary. Would Dickson be better to close out a tight game in the last 20?

The Queen herself could start and I won't ruddy matter if our runners take the ball standing still.  Youngs, Care, Dickson cannot be successful if we are stationary.
This is coaching.  This is captain.  And based upon this point alone - they are failing.

Cyril - I'd go for Youngs/Care combo as I always feel like they're both trying to outdo each other albeit in a similar style.

Doc - I think you're right about us needing a gnarled, ugly, streetwise captain and, as you say, there aren't many choices at present. We are better with a bloody minded attitude.

stub wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Cyril wrote:

stub wrote:I only really noticed that charge down. Overall I thought Dickson was worth a look but on balance I'd be happier with Youngs/Care.

If Youngs or Care start would you want the other on the bench (to offer a similar style and impact, running etc) or Dickson to enable a different option if necessary. Would Dickson be better to close out a tight game in the last 20?

The Queen herself could start and I won't ruddy matter if our runners take the ball standing still.  Youngs, Care, Dickson cannot be successful if we are stationary.
This is coaching.  This is captain.  And based upon this point alone - they are failing.

Cyril - I'd go for Youngs/Care combo as I always feel like they're both trying to outdo each other albeit in a similar style.

Doc - I think you're right about us needing a gnarled, ugly, streetwise captain and, as you say, there aren't many choices at present. We are better with a bloody minded attitude.

So, who we gots?  I just don't see anyone with a smattering of that special emotion and drive.  
Good players, for sure, but no one who has the extra intangible.  I really believe this is the biggest missing link between being a good team and a team which can challenge successfully for the RWC.  Please understand with my army background (although we disagree on almost everything, but they keep coming back to me for some reason), I believe in strong leadership.  

We will fail without it. Guaranteed.

doctor_grey wrote:

stub wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Cyril wrote:

stub wrote:I only really noticed that charge down. Overall I thought Dickson was worth a look but on balance I'd be happier with Youngs/Care.

If Youngs or Care start would you want the other on the bench (to offer a similar style and impact, running etc) or Dickson to enable a different option if necessary. Would Dickson be better to close out a tight game in the last 20?

The Queen herself could start and I won't ruddy matter if our runners take the ball standing still.  Youngs, Care, Dickson cannot be successful if we are stationary.
This is coaching.  This is captain.  And based upon this point alone - they are failing.

Cyril - I'd go for Youngs/Care combo as I always feel like they're both trying to outdo each other albeit in a similar style.

Doc - I think you're right about us needing a gnarled, ugly, streetwise captain and, as you say, there aren't many choices at present. We are better with a bloody minded attitude.

So, who we gots?  I just don't see anyone with a smattering of that special emotion and drive.  
Good players, for sure, but no one who has the extra intangible.  I really believe this is the biggest missing link between being a good team and a team which can challenge successfully for the RWC.  Please understand with my army background (although we disagree on almost everything, but they keep coming back to me for some reason), I believe in strong leadership.  

We will fail without it.  Guaranteed.

In the Elite squad we're struggling for that ilk. You're right (risks + warts accepted) Hartley best fits that bill. I mentioned Brown earlier - half tongue in cheek - not sure if full backs captain teams. After that not sure. Future choices - I wonder if Manu could ever make the step up. Cole was dismissed earlier - not sure why although admittedly he doesn't seem a leader. It's a conundrum.

stub wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

stub wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Cyril wrote:

stub wrote:I only really noticed that charge down. Overall I thought Dickson was worth a look but on balance I'd be happier with Youngs/Care.

If Youngs or Care start would you want the other on the bench (to offer a similar style and impact, running etc) or Dickson to enable a different option if necessary. Would Dickson be better to close out a tight game in the last 20?

The Queen herself could start and I won't ruddy matter if our runners take the ball standing still.  Youngs, Care, Dickson cannot be successful if we are stationary.
This is coaching.  This is captain.  And based upon this point alone - they are failing.

Cyril - I'd go for Youngs/Care combo as I always feel like they're both trying to outdo each other albeit in a similar style.

Doc - I think you're right about us needing a gnarled, ugly, streetwise captain and, as you say, there aren't many choices at present. We are better with a bloody minded attitude.

So, who we gots?  I just don't see anyone with a smattering of that special emotion and drive.  
Good players, for sure, but no one who has the extra intangible.  I really believe this is the biggest missing link between being a good team and a team which can challenge successfully for the RWC.  Please understand with my army background (although we disagree on almost everything, but they keep coming back to me for some reason), I believe in strong leadership.  

We will fail without it.  Guaranteed.

In the Elite squad we're struggling for that ilk. You're right (risks + warts accepted) Hartley best fits that bill. I mentioned Brown earlier - half tongue in cheek - not sure if full backs captain teams. After that not sure. Future choices - I wonder if Manu could ever make the step up. Cole was dismissed earlier - not sure why although admittedly  he doesn't seem a leader. It's a conundrum.

Launchbury. I really think in a couple of years he's our man.

I think Hartley may be a good choice, if Saints are still playing like they are come 6N's I'd have no problem with him getting a game or two as captain then. Likewise trying out a couple of other combos as well. To me at this stage of the England cycle the 6N's means nothing, we know where the team are and how good they can be, coming first or last against the rest of the NH doesn't really matter a jot, it should all be about prep for the NZ tour and a good showing there. I'd give a wooden spoon for a 2-1 victory in NZ and day!

I can see him as a leader too Cyril. Just that he doesn't fit that sort of bloody minded, ugly and streetwise sort of type.

stub wrote:I can see him as a leader too Cyril. Just that he doesn't fit that sort of bloody minded, ugly and streetwise sort of type.

Not yet maybe. But soon.

I'm up for Hartley, by the way. Though I'm not inclined to cast aside Robshaw (or, indeed, Wood) at the moment.

I do see doc's point that we need an edge. We are a bit too 'nice' at the moment.

Hartley certainly has that kiwi cloak of invisibility.
Forearm drop on McCaw? No penalty...no citing. No obstruction...

Btw I think the ratings are quite fair.

Marler and Wilson did well against more lauded opposite numbers and came out ahead and worked in the loose without being outstanding- both 6
Hartley- 8
Launchbury and Lawes- 6.5, lineout much improved but I think that was Hartley's doing
Wood, Robshaw and Vunipola- 6, 6.5 for Robshaw's play but loses it because he couldn't lead the men to kill the game.
Dickson- 6. (Maybe 6.5) Did very well at passing fast and using the pack with a dominant pack, but no threat in himself. 2 tackles is fine, tackles by backs will be made when they are needed, ridiculous to criticise a 9 for not making enough tackles if he hasn't had to and hasn't missed them, of much rather he was ready to use turnover back than at the bottom of a ruck
Farrell-5.5, did ok to start with but must take blame for our faltering attack to a degree
Foden-6. Didn't do much but out of position and did nothing wrong
Twelvetrees-5.5 good try but also errors
Tomkins-6 actually did a bit in attack in terms of setting up others I thought
Ashton- 4. Didn't score really and butchered a try. Needs an INT rest
Brown- 7. Not flashy or outstanding but consistently good at all the basics and our best back just ahead of Dickson

Corbs- 6. Fine, but suffered as too many changes made at once
T Youngs-5, needs to work hard on throwing
Cole- see Corbs tbh
Parling- 5
Morgan- 6 good try
Care- 5, pack was doing far worse but didn't raise tempo
Flood- 5, but in a silly silly position
Goode- too little time to assess

Who's Roger wilson at 3?

Launchbury is a Richard hill type, not extravagant...he just does things well. Him ans lawes could be a good combo.

Hartleys best game for England...his angles of running was like Ashtons should be

Ashton needs dropped

But we must play 80 mins..not just the first 40

Wilson is lucky to get a 6. Defeated at the scrum by Ayerza giving away a couple of penalties and earning none, don't think we won a penalty at the scrum until Cole and Corbs were on. Only one carry I can remember and that was for a couple of metres and through one tackle.

CJ, Hartley barely touched the tail of the lineout (and not in the first half if I remember rightly) mainly hitting the front. Youngs was throwing to the back so the backs could have better ball to play off, less secure but was the key to our final try. Given the Saints connections makes sense to retain Hartley when he's in such form but he needs to be looking deeper than the front and middle of the lineout as Farrell needs all the help he can get in attack.

Whilst Wood was average for a second game I thought Robshaw was excellent, a real thorn in the side of the Pumas.

Surely where Hartley threw was Lawes' call not his?

ratings all seem reasonable to me, apart from Dickson. i gave him 8 for his first half performance. speed of ball was to me the single most important contributor to England being on the front foot for the entire first half. against NZ i dont want 9 to kick - that's inviting trouble. i want 9 to launch attacks, quick ones, and either draw McCaw or Louw infringements or launch our own forwards past the gain line. leave the tactical kicking to someone else.

doctor_grey wrote:

stub wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Cyril wrote:

stub wrote:I only really noticed that charge down. Overall I thought Dickson was worth a look but on balance I'd be happier with Youngs/Care.

If Youngs or Care start would you want the other on the bench (to offer a similar style and impact, running etc) or Dickson to enable a different option if necessary. Would Dickson be better to close out a tight game in the last 20?

The Queen herself could start and I won't ruddy matter if our runners take the ball standing still.  Youngs, Care, Dickson cannot be successful if we are stationary.
This is coaching.  This is captain.  And based upon this point alone - they are failing.

Cyril - I'd go for Youngs/Care combo as I always feel like they're both trying to outdo each other albeit in a similar style.

Doc - I think you're right about us needing a gnarled, ugly, streetwise captain and, as you say, there aren't many choices at present. We are better with a bloody minded attitude.

So, who we gots?  I just don't see anyone with a smattering of that special emotion and drive.  
Good players, for sure, but no one who has the extra intangible.  I really believe this is the biggest missing link between being a good team and a team which can challenge successfully for the RWC.  Please understand with my army background (although we disagree on almost everything, but they keep coming back to me for some reason), I believe in strong leadership.  

We will fail without it.  Guaranteed.

dr grey, I share your concern re Lancaster and the coaching team. The idea that anyone could pick Tomkins thinking he is an international player is terrifying, and our game has not advanced at all as far as I can tell, minus some, occasionally, better rucking (which i suppose shouldn't be sniffed at).

But i think your point on leadership is nonsense. The idea of a 'Lionheart Leader' is completely risible nonsense imo. Good leadership can take many forms and having this across a team is far more essential than having a single bloke leading from the front.

Actually, I should raise Dickson's rating to 6.5/7

Hood83 wrote:But i think your point on leadership is nonsense. The idea of a 'Lionheart Leader' is completely risible nonsense imo. Good leadership can take many forms and having this across a team is far more essential than having a single bloke leading from the front.

Hoody, its OK we disagree.  But is my opinion nonsense?  Really?
But different strokes, eh mate?  I simply don't subscribe to the 'everyone is a leader' concept. To me if 'everyone is a leader' then the sad reality is no one is a leader.

OK, the leader doesn't need to be the 'white orc' but does need to be someone to light a spark under his teammates and truly LEAD.  Robshaw, for all he is a very good player, doesn't incite any energy from anyone but himself, or so it appears to me. He is a terrific player. And works like a dog.  But that is where it ends.  That doesn't mean he is a lesser player for it.  

Good leaders are a very rare breed.  And that behaviour manifests itself in many different ways.  
For all my faults and f-ups, that's something I do have a lot of experience with.  
I believe in strong leadership.  Its not a concept that everyone has good experience with. England need it.
I don't think this England squad has it.  On the field and possibly in the coaching ranks.

And I think that could well be the difference in 2015.

It is hard to give player ratings when they put out such drastically different performances in each half. The forwards were outstanding in the 1st half, yet lacked composure and intensity in the 2nd. The backs were very poor in the 2nd half and the forwards' performance only contributed slightly to this.

Had we continued with the 1st half performance I do think there is a possibility we could have all got carried away by the result and been over confident for this weekend. As it now stands we're going into a game against the world's best team as major underdogs with a real point to prove following 2 pretty mediocre performances.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Corbs is a fantastic scrummager, him and Cole are a great pairing.

Who's Roger Wilson?

the ulster (and former saints) no8. I was amazed no-one had spotted him playing

I sincerely hope Hartley is not made captain. He has more disciplinary problems than most players in world rugby.

Plus he's not even guaranteed his spot.

Doctor grey I agree that perhaps Robshaw is not the answer but Hartley is certainly not the solution in my opinion.

beshocked wrote:I sincerely hope Hartley is not made captain. He has more disciplinary problems than most players in world rugby.

Plus he's not even guaranteed his spot.

Doctor grey I agree that perhaps Robshaw is not the answer but Hartley is certainly not the solution in my opinion.

Whilst I agree re captaincy as a hooker he is streets ahead of Youngs who at line-outs cannot hit the right farm never mind a barn door.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Actually, I should raise Dickson's rating to 6.5/7

Agree. I thought Dickson had a strong 1st half, particularly getting the ball away quickly from rucks where the England forwards had become slightly exposed. A number of times Argentina could see the potential for a turnover but before they could react Dickson had the ball away. In that sense is was quite a purists performance from Dickson. None of this glory hunting stuff, just good fashioned tempo play and slick service. Dropped off in the 2nd half though.

Maybe I was a little harsh on Dickson. Roger Wilson was quality though standing in at prop for us.

yappysnap wrote:Maybe I was a little harsh on Dickson. Roger Wilson was quality though standing in at prop for us.

You mean David Wilson?  

As I said, i thought our scrum halves didn't always have much to work with when the rest of the team was standing around too much and not moving aggressively to to gain line to take a pass.  Dickson has a quicker release, but Youngs and Care are better runners.  Care has a sh1t haricut, whihc is enough to keep him off the team.

Yappy, I need you on my side re: captain for England.  Even if not Hartley, some other animal.  
I am also becomng equally disenfranchised with Farrell at 10.  But that would tart off another firestorm, eh mate?  

We gots two years to make our boys faster, stronger, and more adept.  Is our boy Lancaster going to get it done? Does he have the goods?

doctor_grey wrote:Care has a sh1t haricut, which is enough to keep him off the team.

I wholeheartedly agree. He looks a total prat.

Seriously though, he's a potential match winner, and whilst Ben Youngs is looking to recapture top form I'd have Care on the bench to spark something later on.

FES really a potential match winner? At club level I would wholeheartedly agree but at international level Care has to convince me.

Youngs and Care in my opinion are way off the quality of Dawson and Bracken.

doctor grey if in doubt blame any other player other than Dickson no? Don't worry you're not the only poster to do that. It's natural to blame players surrounding the player you champion rather than focus on the flaws of the player you champion.

The 9s blame the forwards and blames the 10, the 10s blame the slow ball from the 9 and the forwards, the centres blame the slow ball coming from the 9 and 10, the back three blame the 9, 10 and 12 and 13 for not getting the ball. The forwards blame the backs for needlessly kicking the ball away, missing kicks and goal and not making ground with ball in hand.

It's never an individual player's fault necessarily.

Rugby is a team game. It's about units and getting the right units together into a cohesive unit.

Is Dickson-Farrell a 9-10 combo that works?

Does a 36-Tomkins partnership feel you with confidence?

Dickson is not an international quality player, he offers nothing that is International class.

Good AP player behind a strong pack but he should only wear an England shirt in dire circumstances.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Dickson is not an international quality player, he offers nothing that is International class.

I thought his speed of service in the 1st half was excellent. He's no Will Genia, but he does the basics to a high standard.

Ben Youngs (on form) is still England best 9, it's just a shame that his form has deserted him.

Whatever happened to Joe Simpson at Wasps. A few seasons ago he really looked the business.

Beshocked - Care has done pretty well against SH sides on summer tours in the past, and his acceleration from a standing start is excellent (just a shame that England don't seem to use that aspect of his game as well as Quins). "Match winner" is probably going a bit far, but he is a player who can change things.

Big wrote:
You say that we seem to be doing it with players on the way up now, rather than those on the way down - but actually I think there were a number of young players in the 2011 6 nations (Ashton was 23 and actually playing reasonably well, as were Cole and Hartley, Wood was 24, Corbisiero 22, Youngs 21) and others like Flood, Foden, Haskell, etc were arguably still a couple of years away from what should be their peak.  It was the youngsters making a mark and getting the team running, while the senior players typically seemed to be filling the gaps and not playing particularly well (anyone want Deacon, Tindall and Hape back??  Good enough at club level but not now or then international standard).

Agree there were plenty of young players back then, but there was a clear split between the young players and the players just holding on for one more world cup. Sheridan, Thompson, Deacon, Shaw, Palmer, Easter, Wilkinson, Hape, Tindall and Cueto (& Moody - injured) were all major figures in that side who have now been replaced by players with long potential careers still to come.

I thought his service was terrible FES, his passing was all over the place and seemed to make the wrong call too often.

I'm really not a Dickson fan, he's the worst scrum half we've had for a long time.

Youngs often steps up at Int level, he's easily our best option with Care off the bench.

Do people on here really think Tomkins is any better than Shontayne Hape?

A lot of people see Hape as the nadir of rugby league converts playing for England (or was that Henry Paul), but I'm yet to be convinced that Tomkins is much better. He's defensively good, but 13 is such an important attacking position. Ignoring club form is very much against my principles, but I really would have liked to have seen Eastmond or Joseph given a crack in these AIs.

Beshocked - I await your robust defence of Tomkins!!

FES acceleration from a standing start is an additional bonus. It's not a core requirement to be a 9 IMO.

From a 9 what I want personally is them to generate quick ball and make good decisions.

Care has flair but I don't think he is particularly effective at those two aspects at international level IMO.

If he brought his club form to international level he could be excellent.

Youngs when on form is as you say is the best 9 but he's prone to inconsistency.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Do people on here really think Tomkins is any better than Shontayne Hape?

A lot of people see Hape as the nadir of rugby league converts playing for England (or was that Henry Paul), but I'm yet to be convinced that Tomkins is much better. He's defensively good, but 13 is such an important attacking position. Ignoring club form is very much against my principles, but I really would have liked to have seen Eastmond or Joseph given a crack in these AIs.

Beshocked - I await your robust defence of Tomkins!!

Hape was underrated I thought. Not a top international by any means, but put in some pretty good performances during 2010-2011. We'd have been better off with him at 12 in the world cup than Tindall.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Do people on here really think Tomkins is any better than Shontayne Hape?

A lot of people see Hape as the nadir of rugby league converts playing for England (or was that Henry Paul), but I'm yet to be convinced that Tomkins is much better. He's defensively good, but 13 is such an important attacking position. Ignoring club form is very much against my principles, but I really would have liked to have seen Eastmond or Joseph given a crack in these AIs.

Beshocked - I await your robust defence of Tomkins!!

Perhaps not but I think Tomkins needs a little bit more time before he's written off as not good enough. I admit he hasn't exactly done himself any favours so far but I am not going to join the pitchforks and torches brigade just yet.

Certainly prefer him to either Joseph or Eastmond as of now.

Tomkins needs to be judged outside a 10 who can attack.

Conrad Smith would look poor outside a halfback combo of Dickson/Farrell.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Tomkins needs to be judged outside a 10 who can attack.

Conrad Smith would look poor outside a halfback combo of Dickson/Farrell.

Oh right so it's two other player's fault now?

I am sorry I don't quite get all this - Player X played poorly because of player Y in your eyes.



Personally I think Player X played poorly because of Player X.

thomh wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Do people on here really think Tomkins is any better than Shontayne Hape?

A lot of people see Hape as the nadir of rugby league converts playing for England (or was that Henry Paul), but I'm yet to be convinced that Tomkins is much better. He's defensively good, but 13 is such an important attacking position. Ignoring club form is very much against my principles, but I really would have liked to have seen Eastmond or Joseph given a crack in these AIs.

Beshocked - I await your robust defence of Tomkins!!

Hape was underrated I thought. Not a top international by any means, but put in some pretty good performances during 2010-2011. We'd have been better off with him at 12 in the world cup than Tindall.

Hape just wasn't an international quality centre. Fine at club level, but just not at the races in the international context.

I realise that this wouldn't be a "form" decision, but I really rate Jonathan Joseph. He's got great pace and is a wonderfully balanced runner. He also appreciates the importance of running with the ball in both hands. Trinder is another who I really rate. Always seems to get on the scoresheet, and has a great eye for the try line. I'm afraid I don't rate Tomkins as highly. Just looks slightly pedestrian.

The backline lived off scraps, Farrell and Dickson offer little in way of attack.

Tomkins has not made much contribution in attack but I can't recall him getting any kind of attacking ball.

I personally don't think he's much cop but its unfair to dismiss him when he has to play with Dickson & Farrell.

I think that's pretty harsh on Dickson and Farrell, I really do. England were very good in the 1st half, and although the whole side stepped off the gas in the 2nd half (and it really was the whole side as a collective, including the forwards), the speed of the England attack in the 1st half was very good indeed. To get a scoreline like that at half time against Argentina isn't bad at all.

Farrell is always going to divide opinion given his playing style. He's no Dan Carter and never will be. However, all he can do is continue to play well for Sarries and get picked for England. He's quite deservedly the first choice fly half for England, and it's no use blaming him for that. I'd argue that Flood, Burns and Ford all have more talent, particularly in the attacking aspects of the game, but it's up to them to perform at a level to convince Lancaster to start them and outplay Farrell. Until they do that, it's Farrell's jersey.

The way in which he turned things around against Australia also shows great character. Many more talented players (Charlie Hodgson and Danny Cipriani being prime examples) have failed in that department for England.

beshocked wrote:FES really a potential match winner? At club level I would wholeheartedly agree but at international level Care has to convince me.

Youngs and Care in my opinion are way off the quality of Dawson and Bracken.

doctor grey if in doubt blame any other player other than Dickson no? Don't worry you're not the only poster to do that. It's natural to blame players surrounding the player you champion rather than focus on the flaws of the player you champion.

The 9s blame the forwards and blames the 10, the 10s blame the slow ball from the 9 and the forwards, the centres blame the slow ball coming from the 9 and 10, the back three blame the 9, 10 and 12 and 13 for not getting the ball.  The forwards blame the backs for needlessly kicking the ball away, missing kicks and goal and not making ground with ball in hand.

It's never an individual player's fault necessarily.

Rugby is a team game. It's about units and getting the right units together into a cohesive unit.

Is Dickson-Farrell a 9-10 combo that works?

Does a 36-Tomkins partnership feel you with confidence?

Laddy,
I'm not just defending Dickson because I am a Saints fan. None of our 9s could have sparked much with everyone standing around picking their noses instead of moving forward. I believe I have said this a number of times already. You just have to read up a bit.

You are clearly right. It is a team game, and if no one moves towards the gain line, the team fails no? Maybe my posts confused you. Just happens Dickson was the 9 on the pitch at the time.

If you don't care for Dickson, that's fine. I like Dickson as a player, but maybe we are unlike because I don't care who plays if England can put out a superior team and win. And I generally try not to patronise people I disagree with. It is an adult thing.

One thing about which I can say we agree is that our 9-10 combo is not working. Frankly, I am not convinced Farrell is the answer regardless who is feeding him the ball. And, no I don't care for Twelvetrees and Tomkins from the two matches so far. Maybe a bit unsure about Twelvetrees, but Tomkins was almost invisible, though a bit better in defense.

Tomkins got over the gainline when finally given a flat ball and it helped create Morgan's try. That was our only bit of quick ball off the lineout and the only time we took it to the gainline before passing. If your going to play Tomkins who's strengths are hard running and offloading out of contact it is sod all use giving him the ball 5 to 10 metres behind the gain line.

The backline is a shambles and in what universe is it better to put Flood at 12 whilst Farrell is at 10 that was nearly as moronic as naming three full backs in the 23, what tactical options did that give us? Pretty much none. Take away the explosive capabilities of a Manu at 13 and the creative 9s Youngs and Care and our starting backline looks toothless is phase play (Mike Brown at least looks good running it back).

Sam,
Not sure which universe we need to be in to play this backline, but you sure are right it ain't this one.  Brown seems to be the best attacking threat, but we are not going to beat the ABs by feeding a fullback.  

Seems you see Tomkins more than me.  How are we going to get him that flat pass and quick ball out at 13?  I am really concerned our attack is going nowhere fast.  

One of the ABs (many) strengths is quick counter-attack.  A few mistakes on attack and our goose is cooked.  We need to somehow keep the ball and keep moving forwards.  Almost feels like 10 man Rugby again.