SL at the crossroad of success or failure

First topic message reminder :

SL led his squad in to the AIs with high hopes. As they progressed there was cause for optimism as both Aus and los pumas were downed. The big one loomed against NZ and England fell. Their slow start, ineffective bench and flaky mental strength in the closing stages illuminated the fact that they are a long way from the top. A competitive pack in front of a below par backline. And that was against a NZ side with one or two obvious frailties.

SL clearly has a lot to think about. He has taken a line that talks of development, blooding new players and peaking in 2015.  etc. The only realistic conclusion can be is that we aren't capable of the improvement necessary to overcome the best and never will be until we bring on better players through the squad. The collywobbles must have kicked in big time. He has stubbornly refused to play experienced players eg, nick Easter, for a win today. Preferring to talk of more wins tomorrow.  He will look a sad lonely figure if his young squad does not deliver.

What is clear is that our backline is way off the pace but what is much more concerning is that there are no obvious replacements. We are 2 years out and still do not have a world class backline. It's clear that the current crop just aren't good enough and never will be. Where are the Greenwoods, Tindalls  and Cohens in England? The English system of identification and development of players needs a thorough overhaul. It relies far too heavily on a relative small number of posh schools to the detriment of the majority. Herein lies the real problem. SL hasn't really got any better players to choose. Unacceptable for a country with such huge resources compared to the rest.


I

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote:When have England not struggled for fluency since 2003? Sure we've had bursts of brilliance like beating the Aussies with Flood running the show, Cipriani destroying Ireland, Farrell pulling the strings vs Scotland and NZ but the team never seems to be able maintain any sort of fluency in attack.

We forget that England have had good times in attack but have mostly look laboured even when convincingly winning.

England should continue to get stronger as the talent pool grows and players get more experienced.

We forget that most of these England guys are still young - the likes of Manu,Farrell,the Vunipola bros, Cole, Lawes and Launchbury.

Plus surely they'll be a time when the bright young talents from Exeter will breakthrough.

Is the English Premiership to blame? Too many foreign players taking the limelight while English players dwindle...?

No. I partially blame SCW and the short term efforts made to win the 2003 world cup.

The English age groups sides are now getting back to their best and compete with the tri nations.

Lots of young talent coming through. Some positions are stocked better than others.

At loosehead for example we have Corbisiero,Mako and Marler. 3 decent options. Centre is still a question mark but a young bolter might appear.

Hooker is an area where we have players like Hartley,T.Youngs,Buchanan,Webber,LCD and George.

beshocked wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote:When have England not struggled for fluency since 2003? Sure we've had bursts of brilliance like beating the Aussies with Flood running the show, Cipriani destroying Ireland, Farrell pulling the strings vs Scotland and NZ but the team never seems to be able maintain any sort of fluency in attack.

We forget that England have had good times in attack but have mostly look laboured even when convincingly winning.

England should continue to get stronger as the talent pool grows and players get more experienced.

We forget that most of these England guys are still young - the likes of Manu,Farrell,the Vunipola bros, Cole, Lawes and Launchbury.

Plus surely they'll be a time when the bright young talents from Exeter will breakthrough.

Is the English Premiership to blame? Too many foreign players taking the limelight while English players dwindle...?

No. I partially blame SCW and the short term efforts made to win the 2003 world cup.

The English age groups sides are now getting back to their best and compete with the tri nations.

Lots of young talent coming through. Some positions are stocked better than others.

At loosehead for example we have Corbisiero,Mako and Marler. 3 decent options. Centre is still a question mark but a young bolter might appear.

Hooker is an area where we have players like Hartley,T.Youngs,Buchanan,Webber,LCD and George.

England under 20s are consistently superb. But there doesn't seem to be many u20s players getting game team regularly in the Premiership, certainly not in comparison to the RP12, Curry Cup, NPC or S15.

SL has done a good job with the pack (altho I’m not a fan of T Youngs). The current backline is there because of injuries – so it’s hard to blame SL for that. If everyone was fit he’d have selected Dickson/Youngs, Farrell, Barritt/12T, Manu, Yarde, Brown, Wade. Hard to argue with that, altho SL has been a bit slow in arriving at this point. Impact off the bench has been a bit hit and miss. Tactics are a different issue, and clearly a bit of a problem, altho with the current selection that was always going to be a difficult job. I think part of the problem with Farrell is that the rest of the current backs are just not up to it. I’ll give SL 6.5/10 for now.

offload wrote:SL took a team more interested in throwing dwarfs than accurate passes and in two years has produced a team able to compete with the best.  Seems to me that he's done a pretty good job.  

It takes time to build the skills needed, particularly in the back line and time to establish a game plan that will win, particularly when the best (NZ and SA) are improving and developing themselves (why don't they stand still for a while and lest the rest of us catch up a bit)!

It is yet to be determined whether SL will make the best use of his resources to go to the next level. It's all about selection and regardless of what back line he settles on, I'm not convinced he has the right long term 9 and 10 axis to really ask questions of the top teams.  Just an opinion of course...

A parlous, tabloid view of reality.

The process of change was already in train and underway before the RWC of 2011. The reality that team leadership from senior players (Wilko apart) was that of gross abandonment of duty with Moody as captain and the irksome Tindall to the fore.

They secured their senior positions by dint of being the most competent of a motley bunch. It was their fault rather than MJ's and the RFU from fart downward to a less gaseous body product cauterised their own arses by scapegoating MJ.

That's another view.

beshocked wrote:No. I partially blame SCW and the short term efforts made to win the 2003 world cup.

I've heard this many times, but I'm not sure I agree. There were a lot of older senior players in the side, but there were plenty of future leaders as well. There were more players set to retire than is ideal, but there were also plenty of players that in age terms weren't likely to peak until 2007 (Vickery, Hill, Wilkinson, Cohen, Moody, etc), and others that would have been the seniors in 2007 (Dallaglio, Robinson, Thompson, Kay and so on). What made things really bad was plain bad luck in my view - so many brilliant players that should have formed the core of the next team either had to stop playing altogether or had extended runs of injuries and never looked the same afterwards. The few that remained seemed to drop off in form - I can only assume that's because the environment created by SCW wasn't maintained, or after winning the biggest prize going they perhaps lacked motivation.

If there was short termism it was what came after SCW, until the latter days of Johnsons time as manager very few players seem to have come through. We'd expect to have a handful of 30something senior players now, that got their first caps in the build up to 2007 - but where are they? I'm struggling to think of the quality players brought through by Robinson and Ashton.

maestegmafia wrote:
Is the English Premiership to blame? Too many foreign players taking the limelight while English players dwindle...?

I think more to do with a "must not loose" mentality rather than a " try everything to win and go down in a blaze of glory" this attitude stops players trying high risk stuff for their clubs so they cannot do it for England either

TJ wrote:Aye Biltong - thats the point.  the best coaches realise nowadays you need a 15 man game.  the old England / SA style will not get you to the top.  Nor will gatlandball.  

Maybe not to the top for long, but I think it is enough to get the side to the top. That's the beauty, of it all, we can have the old 10 men rugby, which when executed well with a decent kicker, can win games as much as 15 men wide rugby.

I really think the boks will be the force for the next couple of years, they seem to have the basic strong pack, and also starting to run their backs as well now. As a lot of their backs could probably physically be forwards of sorts that could make them an awesome side.

But of course by then the Wallabies wil have a settled back line and unearthed some front rows and we'll be the champ!!!   

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:That's another view.

It certainly is. Facund, but equally parlous.
 

TJ wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:
Is the English Premiership to blame? Too many foreign players taking the limelight while English players dwindle...?

I think more to do with a  "must not loose" mentality rather than a " try everything to win and go down in a blaze of glory" this attitude stops players trying high risk stuff  for their clubs so they cannot do it for England either

Which raises the question. How are the Celtic nations going to improve?

Please don't answer that. Pretty please.
This is an article about Lancaster's competence.

Lose beautifully or win ugly. Which do you prefer?

Winning is never ugly.

+1

maestegmafia wrote:Is the English Premiership to blame? Too many foreign players taking the limelight while English players dwindle...?

You could say the same for the Rabo and Top14 leagues.

Why single out the AP Maesteg?

Big wrote:

beshocked wrote:No. I partially blame SCW and the short term efforts made to win the 2003 world cup.

I've heard this many times, but I'm not sure I agree.   There were a lot of older senior players in the side, but there were plenty of future leaders as well.  There were more players set to retire than is ideal, but there were also plenty of players that in age terms weren't likely to peak until 2007 (Vickery, Hill, Wilkinson, Cohen, Moody, etc), and others that would have been the seniors in 2007 (Dallaglio, Robinson, Thompson, Kay and so on).  What made things really bad was plain bad luck in my view - so many brilliant players that should have formed the core of the next team either had to stop playing altogether or had extended runs of injuries and never looked the same afterwards.  The few that remained seemed to drop off in form - I can only assume that's because the environment created by SCW wasn't maintained, or after winning the biggest prize going they perhaps lacked motivation.

If there was short termism it was what came after SCW, until the latter days of Johnsons time as manager very few players seem to have come through.  We'd expect to have a handful of 30something senior players now, that got their first caps in the build up to 2007 - but where are they?  I'm struggling to think of the quality players brought through by Robinson and Ashton.

Indeed - Johnson did not start the rebuilding that was needed

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote:When have England not struggled for fluency since 2003? Sure we've had bursts of brilliance like beating the Aussies with Flood running the show, Cipriani destroying Ireland, Farrell pulling the strings vs Scotland and NZ but the team never seems to be able maintain any sort of fluency in attack.

We forget that England have had good times in attack but have mostly look laboured even when convincingly winning.

England should continue to get stronger as the talent pool grows and players get more experienced.

We forget that most of these England guys are still young - the likes of Manu,Farrell,the Vunipola bros, Cole, Lawes and Launchbury.

Plus surely they'll be a time when the bright young talents from Exeter will breakthrough.

Is the English Premiership to blame? Too many foreign players taking the limelight while English players dwindle...?

Totally the opposite. England for years have been flooded with average Joe journeymen. The RFU made the move to financially reward clubs who play young English lads. This has led to the accademies producing floods of players. Of course this takes time to filter through and its only really now we're starting to see the youngsters hitting the fringes of England. Lancaster needs to start looking at a few of them.

This WC might be just too soon for some of them...but the manager from then who ever it is up to 2019 should have a wealth of talent to work with...

I like Easter, and think Lancaster was wrong not to consider him when he resorted to playing Wood at No.8, but I don't think that spot has been a problem for us with Vunipola and Morgan in the frame.

I wanted him used last year, because his offloading ability would have suited what we were trying to do, and he could have linked with Care to good effect. Can't see the point in drafting him in now.

As we've been airing on other threads, Woodward's England lost a match in the Six Nations for four straight seasons. On two of those occasions, it was enough to still take the title but we had to wait until 2003 for a Grand Slam.

Lancaster's team has a similar record. We aren't as excited as we were back in Woodward's day because we aren't sweeping the Southern big 3. Still, the wins against Australia and New Zealand are nothing to be sniffed at.

Before this season started, it looked like England were full of honest endeavour, able to scrape through some matches with a mad, almost shapeless, scrambling defence, but short on any obvious gameplan.

The gameplan now looks like it is becoming clearer, and that's one reason why the constipation in the backline is more evident. New Zealand is going to be a hard tour but, quite frankly, none of the Big 3 would offer a much of an easier chance to improve, so we'll go with what we've got.

My main concern is that I'm not sure our coaches have the same ability as Woodward's team to outhink the opposition. We will get better, and may even claim some more big scalps before the World Cup, but I fear that opposing teams will adapt to countering our strengths faster than we will adapt to them.

The thing is, it isn't clear to me who would be better. We'll never know what Wayne Smith, Jake White or Nick Mallett might have done but we shouldn't assume they would have achieved more.

When our backs failed under Robinson, the press cried out for the return of Brian Ashton and the RFU paid a pretty penny to get him back. He's a lovely man, with one of the best rugby philosphies, but he didn't have the expected impact second time around.

Brian Smith was another extolled for his club work but his backs were only intermittently threatening. We shouldn't assume there's someone else available who could light the touchpaper this time. We need to see whether this set of coaches can take us further, and hope it's far enough by 2015.

So what position should SL set his target for in the 6Ns, RF?

I reckon that anything lower than second would be a disaster unless France show a real rebound from last year's dross.

But the Wales game will be a 'must win' at home even so.

Less than first for me will be a poor return with the programmed fixtures.

We have to be gunning for a 6n win! Nothing less.

That should always be the target.

I don't care how well we play to get it either.

I'd accept 2nd if and only if France show their proper spirit throughout the campaign.

A clean sweep of the Celtalian nations is a must. Can I call it a Quadruple Crown?

beshocked wrote:maestegmafia Tompkins is 18 year old academy player. Tomkins is the player you are referring to.

I bring this to your attention now as you do not get mixed up as Tompkins could be a centre option in the future with a potential start vs Exeter this weekend.

Well-past it you have to ask yourself - do you think it's Farrell Jr's lack of ability or do you think it's the way he's being told to do things? I believe it's definitely the latter.

I like CH but in my opinion he never brought his excellent club form to international level. Plus he's a target for attackers because he's not that big a bloke.

Farrell with his 6,2 and 15 stone frame is a tougher proposition. Plus he has shown himself to be relatively comfortable at international level.

Bathman in London agree with most of that. Tomkins was meant to utilise the back three more and offload but unfortunately he failed quite emphatically at that.

Though similarly I could say 36 hasn't shown us his famed big boot or playmaking skills.

Beshocked,

I just don't know, the fact that he has done it for both England and the Lions shows he can do it. But I cannot think SL and MC are dumb enough to try and play all the rugby from 5m behind the gain line, especially with a combo of Barritt and Manu, who would both benefit from a 10 playing on the gain line, or at least doing it often enough to hold the cover defence a little longer. He did it against NZ last year, did it a couple of times this year, he also started to do it with the Lions. You have to mix the game up a bit and not be so stereotyped.

All I know is it isn't working, when Flood comes on he plays on the G/L, so why would it be an instructed change of tactics from the management just when he plays?

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

beshocked wrote:maestegmafia Tompkins is 18 year old academy player. Tomkins is the player you are referring to.

I bring this to your attention now as you do not get mixed up as Tompkins could be a centre option in the future with a potential start vs Exeter this weekend.

Well-past it you have to ask yourself - do you think it's Farrell Jr's lack of ability or do you think it's the way he's being told to do things? I believe it's definitely the latter.

I like CH but in my opinion he never brought his excellent club form to international level. Plus he's a target for attackers because he's not that big a bloke.

Farrell with his 6,2 and 15 stone frame is a tougher proposition. Plus he has shown himself to be relatively comfortable at international level.

Bathman in London agree with most of that. Tomkins was meant to utilise the back three more and offload but unfortunately he failed quite emphatically at that.

Though similarly I could say 36 hasn't shown us his famed big boot or playmaking skills.

Beshocked,

I just don't know, the fact that he has done it for both England and the Lions shows he can do it. But I cannot think SL and MC are dumb enough to try and play all the rugby from 5m behind the gain line, especially with a combo of Barritt and Manu, who would both benefit from a 10 playing on the gain line, or at least doing it often enough to hold the cover defence a little longer. He did it against NZ last year, did it a couple of times this year, he also started to do it with the Lions. You have to mix the game up a bit and not be so stereotyped.

All I know is it isn't working, when Flood comes on he plays on the G/L, so why would it be an instructed change of tactics from the management just when he plays?

The thing about Flood is that I do want him to succeed but he just haven't delivered recently for England. He got 3-4 opportunities to stake his claim but hasn't done anything with it. E.g. in the AIs last year vs Australia and SA (I know he got injured vs SA but did little when on the pitch), Italy in the 6 nations. Last 10 minutes vs NZ.


Burns is still a ? for England. Perhaps him or Ford are the answer for England. A challenge to Farrell Jr might even improve him.

Sometimes when players get too comfortable they don't perform as well.

There are many good points here. I certainly believe that the AP needs to improve it's EQ player numbers and quality. Farrell has many excellent facets to his game but does lack flair and accuracy of pass in attack. He tends to pass behind the receiver and is not good at varying his game with measured kicks for example. But he is as hard as nails and a reliable kicker.

Tomkins played rugby league against NZ. Never passed once. Appalling. Can he really be turned in to a top class 13 in 2 years?  Ashton is one dimensional and definitely does not have the all_court game. Wade and Yarde have bags of potential but as yet we simply don't know if they can consistently perform at the level required. It's a leap of faith but one worth taking in my view.

What we do know is that the England side that played last week is not at the level required. SL has much to think about and huge decisions to make. Will he and his coaching team take the tough decisions?

He has to

EVERYONE knows the back line is substandard

But SL has to produce in january so he cannot experiment

What he needs more than anything is to get Manu back

Drop Flood and Ashton

Get Foden back at 15

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Is the English Premiership to blame? Too many foreign players taking the limelight while English players dwindle...?

You could say the same for the Rabo and Top14 leagues.

Why single out the AP Maesteg?

That is very simple to answer, it's because Lancaster only picks players from the English premiership

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

beshocked wrote:maestegmafia Tompkins is 18 year old academy player. Tomkins is the player you are referring to.

I bring this to your attention now as you do not get mixed up as Tompkins could be a centre option in the future with a potential start vs Exeter this weekend.

Well-past it you have to ask yourself - do you think it's Farrell Jr's lack of ability or do you think it's the way he's being told to do things? I believe it's definitely the latter.

I like CH but in my opinion he never brought his excellent club form to international level. Plus he's a target for attackers because he's not that big a bloke.

Farrell with his 6,2 and 15 stone frame is a tougher proposition. Plus he has shown himself to be relatively comfortable at international level.

Bathman in London agree with most of that. Tomkins was meant to utilise the back three more and offload but unfortunately he failed quite emphatically at that.

Though similarly I could say 36 hasn't shown us his famed big boot or playmaking skills.

Beshocked,

I just don't know, the fact that he has done it for both England and the Lions shows he can do it. But I cannot think SL and MC are dumb enough to try and play all the rugby from 5m behind the gain line, especially with a combo of Barritt and Manu, who would both benefit from a 10 playing on the gain line, or at least doing it often enough to hold the cover defence a little longer. He did it against NZ last year, did it a couple of times this year, he also started to do it with the Lions. You have to mix the game up a bit and not be so stereotyped.

All I know is it isn't working, when Flood comes on he plays on the G/L, so why would it be an instructed change of tactics from the management just when he plays?

Can't agree with you regarding Farrell, he has had a very long chance and has proved he is not up to it. I watched the England vs ABs game at Twickenham and Farrell was the handbrake yet again.

There are really promising flyhalfs that need game time. Ford and Burns are always going to be better players. If England want to compete at the next World Cup, drop Farrell. He is like and English Dan Parks .

ELEPHANT ALERT....................very large herbivore hiding in plain sight.......

Has anyone ever worked in a truly dysfunctional organisation? I do every day and it’s an absolute tragedy.

Where the leadership personnel and structures will only produce failure, regardless of all the other inputs, however excellent any of those other factors are, because of the fundamental flaws failure is the only outcome.

There are classic signals that denote such organisations......the poison of nepotism is always present within them.

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote:When have England not struggled for fluency since 2003? Sure we've had bursts of brilliance like beating the Aussies with Flood running the show, Cipriani destroying Ireland, Farrell pulling the strings vs Scotland and NZ but the team never seems to be able maintain any sort of fluency in attack.

We forget that England have had good times in attack but have mostly look laboured even when convincingly winning.

England should continue to get stronger as the talent pool grows and players get more experienced.

We forget that most of these England guys are still young - the likes of Manu,Farrell,the Vunipola bros, Cole, Lawes and Launchbury.

Plus surely they'll be a time when the bright young talents from Exeter will breakthrough.

Is the English Premiership to blame? Too many foreign players taking the limelight while English players dwindle...?

No. I partially blame SCW and the short term efforts made to win the 2003 world cup.

The English age groups sides are now getting back to their best and compete with the tri nations.

Lots of young talent coming through. Some positions are stocked better than others.

At loosehead for example we have Corbisiero,Mako and Marler. 3 decent options. Centre is still a question mark but a young bolter might appear.

Hooker is an area where we have players like Hartley,T.Youngs,Buchanan,Webber,LCD and George.

England under 20s are consistently superb. But there doesn't seem to be many u20s players getting game team regularly in the Premiership, certainly not in comparison to the RP12, Curry Cup, NPC or S15.

I'm not sure where this idea that young English players don't get a chance comes from. Look at last years U20 JWC team:

(figures for this season, most played a number of games last year too though.)

Dom Barrow: Played every game for Newcastle this season
Korree Britton: Played three out of seven premiership games this season.
Jack Clifford:  He's got strong competition from club stalwart Easter and long term back up man Guest.
Luke Cowan-Dickie: In the process of converting from prop to hooker.
Ross Harrison: Played every Premiership game this season.
Matt Kvesic: Played in every Premiership game this season.
George Merrick: Stuck behind England Saxon George Robson and recent U20s player Charlie Matthews.
Ben Nutley: Played 2 Premiership games, stuck behind England player Tom Wood.
David Sisi: Been injured.
Nathan Morris: Played one game and he's been loaned out to London Welsh I believe.
Alec Hepburn: Not really kicked on yet,  but he's a 21 year old prop so...

Will Addison: He's been injured this season, but he managed 11 league games last season (despite more injuries)
Josh Bassett: 6 out of 7 Premiership games.
Tommy Bell: 3 out of 7 Premiership games.
Jamie Elliott  6 out of 7 games this season.
Tom Heathcote: He's being kept out of the team by George Ford (who has played every game this season)
Sam Hill: 7 out of 7 Premiership games this season.
Ryan Mills: Poor lad keeps getting injured,  he's just recovered and is out again for a 10 week spell.
Dan Robson: 6 out of 7 premiership games (despite competition from Jimmy Cowan and Tavis Knoyle)
Henry Slade: 6 out of 7 games (mostly as a sub, but he's being eased in slowly).
Ben Spencer: 2 games
Charlie Walker: 3 out of 7 premiership games and a couple in the HC.
Marlande Yarde: 5 out of 7 games.


The U20s squad for the 2011 JWC (Currently 21-22 year olds) is even better though:

Mako Vunipola, Will Collier, Henry Thomas, Rob Buchanan, Mike Haywood, Joe Launcbury, Sam Jones, Matt Kvesic, Dan Robson, George Ford, Owen Farrell, Ryan Mills, Guy Armitage, Elliott Daly, Johnathon Joseph, Marland Yarde and Christian Wade all get get regular game time for their clubs.  (17 out of 25) with 11 representing England in the last season or so.

There are lots of good young EQP (Under 24)  getting regular game time in the Aviva/ HC week in week out.

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote:When have England not struggled for fluency since 2003? Sure we've had bursts of brilliance like beating the Aussies with Flood running the show, Cipriani destroying Ireland, Farrell pulling the strings vs Scotland and NZ but the team never seems to be able maintain any sort of fluency in attack.

We forget that England have had good times in attack but have mostly look laboured even when convincingly winning.

England should continue to get stronger as the talent pool grows and players get more experienced.

We forget that most of these England guys are still young - the likes of Manu,Farrell,the Vunipola bros, Cole, Lawes and Launchbury.

Plus surely they'll be a time when the bright young talents from Exeter will breakthrough.

Is the English Premiership to blame? Too many foreign players taking the limelight while English players dwindle...?

No. I partially blame SCW and the short term efforts made to win the 2003 world cup.

The English age groups sides are now getting back to their best and compete with the tri nations.

Lots of young talent coming through. Some positions are stocked better than others.

At loosehead for example we have Corbisiero,Mako and Marler. 3 decent options. Centre is still a question mark but a young bolter might appear.

Hooker is an area where we have players like Hartley,T.Youngs,Buchanan,Webber,LCD and George.

England under 20s are consistently superb. But there doesn't seem to be many u20s players getting game team regularly in the Premiership, certainly not in comparison to the RP12, Curry Cup, NPC or S15.

If you look at the side that won the JWC this summer the following have been playing for their clubs in the AP:

Jack Nowell
Anthony Watson
Sam Hill
Ollie Devoto
Henry Slade
Jack Clifford
Elliott Stooke
Dom Barrow
Scott Wilson
Kyle Sinckler

Cowan-Dickie would be featuring for Exeter if he hadn't been injured pre-season.  Sisi has also been injured, don't know where he fits into the Bath preferences, but he was getting game time at LI before he left them.  Most of the rest are playing in the LV and A league, maybe one or two 1st team appearances.

niwatts. No doubt true but are players like Nowell really in the same league as players like Savea, Rococoko, JP Petersen, etc. and other greats of test rugby. Does our system of age group selection identify players that are real candidates for the highest level of world rugby or are they just the best of a poor bunch?

I'm not sure it's the best of a poor bunch when our U20's constantly beat every other U20 team apart from New Zealand and are current U20 World Champions.

Most players aren't 'world class' as soon as they take to the pitch as a callow 19-20 year old either. A good player develops into a 'world class' player over time. Jack Nowell and others aren't in that league yet, but give them a chance to develop and gain international experience and let's see what happens.

maestegmafia wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

beshocked wrote:maestegmafia Tompkins is 18 year old academy player. Tomkins is the player you are referring to.

I bring this to your attention now as you do not get mixed up as Tompkins could be a centre option in the future with a potential start vs Exeter this weekend.

Well-past it you have to ask yourself - do you think it's Farrell Jr's lack of ability or do you think it's the way he's being told to do things? I believe it's definitely the latter.

I like CH but in my opinion he never brought his excellent club form to international level. Plus he's a target for attackers because he's not that big a bloke.

Farrell with his 6,2 and 15 stone frame is a tougher proposition. Plus he has shown himself to be relatively comfortable at international level.

Bathman in London agree with most of that. Tomkins was meant to utilise the back three more and offload but unfortunately he failed quite emphatically at that.

Though similarly I could say 36 hasn't shown us his famed big boot or playmaking skills.

Beshocked,

I just don't know, the fact that he has done it for both England and the Lions shows he can do it. But I cannot think SL and MC are dumb enough to try and play all the rugby from 5m behind the gain line, especially with a combo of Barritt and Manu, who would both benefit from a 10 playing on the gain line, or at least doing it often enough to hold the cover defence a little longer. He did it against NZ last year, did it a couple of times this year, he also started to do it with the Lions. You have to mix the game up a bit and not be so stereotyped.

All I know is it isn't working, when Flood comes on he plays on the G/L, so why would it be an instructed change of tactics from the management just when he plays?

Can't agree with you regarding Farrell, he has had a very long chance and has proved he is not up to it. I watched the England vs ABs game at Twickenham and Farrell was the handbrake yet again.

There are really promising flyhalfs that need game time. Ford and Burns are always going to be better players. If England want to compete at the next World Cup, drop Farrell. He is like and English Dan Parks .

Ford and Burns are always going to be better players? Thank you Mystic Meg! It would be great if I could make such predictions like that with your faith and conviction! "going to be better". When?


Perhaps you have a short term memory but Farrell Jr was the 10 when England beat the ABs last season. Tell me how many sides have beaten NZ this season? Oh that's right - it's zero.

Yup elderfield Farrell Jr is only in the England side because of nepotism. There's no way he's as good as Ford and Burns who have proven time and again in HC games and in internationals that they are the two best England 10s.... I am accused of bias, perhaps rightly so but when others show bias too....

English Dan Parks..... A 22 year old compared to a 35 year old?

beshocked wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

beshocked wrote:maestegmafia Tompkins is 18 year old academy player. Tomkins is the player you are referring to.

I bring this to your attention now as you do not get mixed up as Tompkins could be a centre option in the future with a potential start vs Exeter this weekend.

Well-past it you have to ask yourself - do you think it's Farrell Jr's lack of ability or do you think it's the way he's being told to do things? I believe it's definitely the latter.

I like CH but in my opinion he never brought his excellent club form to international level. Plus he's a target for attackers because he's not that big a bloke.

Farrell with his 6,2 and 15 stone frame is a tougher proposition. Plus he has shown himself to be relatively comfortable at international level.

Bathman in London agree with most of that. Tomkins was meant to utilise the back three more and offload but unfortunately he failed quite emphatically at that.

Though similarly I could say 36 hasn't shown us his famed big boot or playmaking skills.

Beshocked,

I just don't know, the fact that he has done it for both England and the Lions shows he can do it. But I cannot think SL and MC are dumb enough to try and play all the rugby from 5m behind the gain line, especially with a combo of Barritt and Manu, who would both benefit from a 10 playing on the gain line, or at least doing it often enough to hold the cover defence a little longer. He did it against NZ last year, did it a couple of times this year, he also started to do it with the Lions. You have to mix the game up a bit and not be so stereotyped.

All I know is it isn't working, when Flood comes on he plays on the G/L, so why would it be an instructed change of tactics from the management just when he plays?

Can't agree with you regarding Farrell, he has had a very long chance and has proved he is not up to it. I watched the England vs ABs game at Twickenham and Farrell was the handbrake yet again.

There are really promising flyhalfs that need game time. Ford and Burns are always going to be better players. If England want to compete at the next World Cup, drop Farrell. He is like and English Dan Parks .

Ford and Burns are always going to be better players? Thank you Mystic Meg! It would be great if I could make such predictions like that with your faith and conviction! "going to be better".  When?


Perhaps you have a short term memory but Farrell Jr was the 10 when England beat the ABs last season. Tell me how many sides have beaten NZ this season? Oh that's right - it's zero.

Yup elderfield Farrell Jr is only in the England side because of nepotism. There's no way he's as good as Ford and Burns who have proven time and again in HC games and in internationals that they are the two best England 10s.... I am accused of bias, perhaps rightly so but when others show bias too....

English Dan Parks..... A 22 year old compared to a 35 year old?

BS if beating the All Blacks is a mark of how good a player Farrell is then how come he is so completely different in the majority of the games he has played?

One good performance over a year ago and very very few since. He should never have been on the lions tour, he was a worse flyhalf than Stuart Hogg who had never played ten at that level.

Ford and Burns, even Sarries own Charlie Hodgson all show skill, endeavour, intelligence, game reading abilities that Farrell lacks. Farrell even suffers worse when under pressure, his kicking ( his one main atribute) loses accuracy and he losses his temper and provokes opposition players.

It is time England moved forward and forced Farrell to play for his position, to try and earn it.

I think Elderfield has a point, if Andy Farrell had not been a coach at Saracens, England or the Lions I honestly do not think Owen Farrell would be a name that anyone would be familiar with.

There's no doubt selecting Owen Farrell has and will continue to lead England further and further down a blind alley.

Of course his father has influenced his selection and ducked over the selection and development of far greater talents.

Am I surprised? No. Am I saddened? Yes. Do I expect Lancaster to continue in his abhorrently inept way? Yes.

Would I happily take the Northampton coaching triptych yesterday (Malinder, West & King)? You betcha I would - all day every day.

English qualified 10's better than Farrell;

Flood, Myler, Goode, Lamb, Geraghty, Burns, Hodgson, Wilkinson, Cipriani, Ford. I expect there's a few more in the Championship.

It's more of a roundabout than a crossroads and England are well and truly stuck on it

All will be forgotten if England wins the 6 Nations

Then they will go to NZ and you'll be back to hating SL. A year out from the RWC will you still be looking for another Manu.

Because there is the solution

When England sort their centre partnership everything falls into place behind a monster pack

And England have a monster pack

but with no centre redundancies in place the MO is to revert to 8 and 10 man rugby.

Hence why their is no real experimentation not he wing, right now you can't reliably get it wide

so England remain conservative and keep faith in false prophets like Ashton and Flood

Tine for a purge

I accept his back selections are largely wrong, and have always believed the Farrell and Co factor is professionally fecked, but you have to get behind him now. He is here for the RWC cycle then, if you lose he will of course go straight to the Tower

kingelderfield wrote:
English qualified 10's better than Farrell;

Flood, Myler, Goode, Lamb, Geraghty, Burns, Hodgson, Wilkinson, Cipriani, Ford. I expect there's a few more in the Championship.

If you truly believe that for all those names, thank god you're nowhere near selecting for England.

kingelderfield wrote:There's no doubt selecting Owen Farrell has and will continue to lead England further and further down a blind alley.

Of course his father has influenced his selection and ducked over the selection and development of far greater talents.

Am I surprised? No. Am I saddened? Yes. Do I expect Lancaster to continue in his abhorrently inept way? Yes.

Would I happily take the Northampton coaching triptych yesterday (Malinder, West & King)? You betcha I would - all day every day.

English qualified 10's better than Farrell;

Flood, Myler, Goode, Lamb, Geraghty, Burns, Hodgson, Wilkinson, Cipriani, Ford. I expect there's a few more in the Championship.

Here here..!

I think Lancaster is at a crossroads - atm our backs are woeful, but potentially very good with changes of personnel / strategy. Can Lancaster make the change?

To address a point made above, the 2000-2003 team were not limited in attack. In fact they were by far the best attacking team England (or even the NH) has seen. The try scoring records of Greenwood, Cohen, Robinson, Lewsey and even Luger are outstanding.

Let's take a look at a team they might have put out:

-----Dawson
------------Wilko
Cohen ------------G'wood--Tindall--Robinson
---------Lewsey

The key elements seem to be outstanding creators / distributors at 9-10-12, and a back three with great awareness and finishing skill.

Now consider

-----Dawson (Dickson)
------------Wilko (faz)
Cohen (Yarde) ------------G'wood (36)--Tindall (Manu)--Robinson (Wade)
---------Lewsey (Brown)

This 2013 team (which would presumably have played against NZ if fit) is actually, man-for-man, quite similar in style. The tough bit is that we need to get a bit better at each of 9,10,12. On the plus side Tuilagi offers a huge threat that 2003 didn't have (and it's not like he has any less guile than Tindall!)

If Lancaster gets it right we should have a good pack, solid defence, huge attacking threats at 13 and 14, and an intelligent, versatile back 3 who can contribute to a rounded attacking game. It seems like the big hole, relative to 2003, is that Dawson, Wilko and Greenwood were outstanding at creating attacks. We simply don't have that now. Seems to me like this is the critical area. I don't expect our 9-10-12 to magically become brilliant in attack, but we need to at least get them to a level where we aren't completely wasting the big threats we should have outside them. I think there is some hope for all of the current incumbents to improve in this respect. But Lancaster really needs to push these guys to improve, and be prepared to make changes sooner rather than later if it isn't happening.

alcoombe wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:
English qualified 10's better than Farrell;

Flood, Myler, Goode, Lamb, Geraghty, Burns, Hodgson, Wilkinson, Cipriani, Ford. I expect there's a few more in the Championship.

If you truly believe that for all those names, thank god you're nowhere near selecting for England.

Agree Alcoombe, id have Farrell over most of those...

GeordieFalcon wrote:

alcoombe wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:
English qualified 10's better than Farrell;

Flood, Myler, Goode, Lamb, Geraghty, Burns, Hodgson, Wilkinson, Cipriani, Ford. I expect there's a few more in the Championship.

If you truly believe that for all those names, thank god you're nowhere near selecting for England.

Agree Alcoombe, id have Farrell over most of those...

Most but definitely not all...

Wi11 wrote:I think Lancaster is at  a crossroads - atm our backs are woeful, but potentially very good with changes of personnel / strategy. Can Lancaster make the change?

To address a point  made above, the 2000-2003 team were not limited in attack. In fact they were by far the best attacking team England (or even the NH) has seen. The try scoring records of Greenwood, Cohen, Robinson, Lewsey and even Luger are outstanding.

Let's take a look at a team they might have put out:

-----Dawson
------------Wilko
Cohen ------------G'wood--Tindall--Robinson
---------Lewsey

The key elements seem to be outstanding creators / distributors at 9-10-12, and a back three with great awareness and finishing skill.

Now consider

-----Dawson (Dickson)
------------Wilko (faz)
Cohen (Yarde) ------------G'wood (36)--Tindall (Manu)--Robinson (Wade)
---------Lewsey (Brown)

This 2013 team (which would presumably have played against NZ if fit) is actually, man-for-man, quite similar in style. The tough bit is that we need to get a bit better  at each of 9,10,12. On the plus side Tuilagi offers a huge threat that 2003 didn't have (and it's not like he has any less guile than Tindall!)

If Lancaster gets it  right we should have a good pack, solid defence, huge attacking threats at 13 and 14, and an intelligent, versatile back 3 who can contribute to a rounded attacking game. It seems like the big hole, relative to 2003, is that Dawson, Wilko and Greenwood were outstanding at creating attacks. We simply don't have that now. Seems to me like this is the critical area. I don't expect our 9-10-12 to magically become brilliant in attack, but we need to at least get them to a level where we aren't completely wasting the big threats we should have outside them. I think there is some hope for all of the current incumbents to improve in this respect. But Lancaster really needs to push these guys to improve, and be prepared to make changes sooner rather than later if it isn't happening.

I appreciate your succinct comparison; I just do not believe Lancaster and his cohorts will get us to the Promised Land.

maestegmafia wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

alcoombe wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:
English qualified 10's better than Farrell;

Flood, Myler, Goode, Lamb, Geraghty, Burns, Hodgson, Wilkinson, Cipriani, Ford. I expect there's a few more in the Championship.

If you truly believe that for all those names, thank god you're nowhere near selecting for England.

Agree Alcoombe, id have Farrell over most of those...

Most but definitely not all...

Ok I accept I exaggerated, however there are players in that list who offer us a really amazing future, a future that if only could be reached for will excite millions throughout the land.

Mate Farrell and Burns are the two that need looked at. Both offer us different style for different games.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Mate Farrell and Burns are the two that need looked at. Both offer us different style for different games.

Nah it's George Ford who's your boy...! He is absolute class.

It's useful to have a mix of differing players available to you for your 10 shirt.

Farrell, Burns & Ford will cover most options for the coming years and each will have their part to play for different games.

I'm pretty happy with that group for the future.