England's Backs.

When is Tuilagi back? We really miss his dynamism, I'd drop 12trees and start Burrell at 12 and find another option at 13 possibly May, he's been playing well there for Gloucester.

Care was quality at 9, playing more like he does at Quins where he has licence to be a playmaker.

Nowell looked nervous but carried well and beat the first tackler a number of times, I don't think we should be in the business of capping 20 year olds and then dropping them, and I think Lancaster knows what he's doing there.

When's Yarde back for Irish?

I'd like to see the same side start if possible due to May's injury. Possibly a slight tweak to the bench to bring Youngs back in. Think we will benefit more from having some continuity now and letting the players get some partnerships going.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd like to see the same side start if possible due to May's injury. Possibly a slight tweak to the bench to bring Youngs back in. Think we will benefit more from having some continuity now and letting the players get some partnerships going.

Yep. One good thing that may have been overlooked but is a huge short term advantage in Players like Wade, Yarde, May, Nowell, Twelvetrees, Launchbury, etc and arguably the played from Bath, Quins and Tigers too is that they are likely to be available for T1 in NZ. That's a huge plus if we can get them integrated before then

Trouble is a Sarries - Saints final severely weakens us at 10. Tigers deprives us of Manu if he's back. Quins screws us over at 7 etc

Worst would probably be Saints v Sarries at the moment. We'd lose Billy V and Farrel plus Saints give us hartley, Lawes, Wood and Burrell.

Best would be Bath v Tigers. We can cover all the losses there and it's only 2 starters plus 3 bench players.

Saints Sarries - Morgan at 8, fine. Parling and Youngs and Webber and Attwood options at hooker and lock. Wood harder to replace- Kvesic might get a go, or Haskell or Johnson. Wallace doesn't look ready at Saxon level yet. Suppose Launchbury could play 6, or Slater? Maybe Slater. Farrell, however, we'd need to get Ford up to scratch first because Burns currently can't play against NZ

I heard for the next six nations match Stuart Lancaster is considering an unprecedented move to select 7 forwards in the backs. Jokes aside for the first 30 minutes England may as well have had no backs. They were useless. They did turn it around and show some signs of progress, Danny Care undoubtedly being to catalyst but also some good work at times from Farrell and Burrell etc.

Still not convinced with Goode at international level and Brown was weak enough too.

It's almost like he was out of position...

What is Lancaster's obsession with playing fullbacks at wing? I know that Brown was forced to the wing because of May's injury, but what about Nowell? Isn't he also primarily a full back?

ChequeredJersey wrote:It's almost like he was out of position...

Isnt he meant to be a utility back?

GunsGerms wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:It's almost like he was out of position...

Isnt he meant to be a utility back?

Brown? No, he's a fullback who gets shoved in at wing sometimes.

GunsGerms wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:It's almost like he was out of position...

Isnt he meant to be a utility back?

In Lancaster's mind. To my knowledge he has never ever played wing for Quins. Even in times of emergency, the other FBs play wing but Mike doesn't. The fact that he still had a good game in attack yesterday is testament to him

Rory_Gallagher wrote:What is Lancaster's obsession with playing fullbacks at wing?  I know that Brown was forced to the wing because of May's injury, but what about Nowell?  Isn't he also primarily a full back?

Exeter are playing him at wing this season though. Watson, the other new back 3 player in the squad, is also a FB by origin

ChequeredJersey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:It's almost like he was out of position...

Isnt he meant to be a utility back?

In Lancaster's mind. To my knowledge he has never ever played wing for Quins. Even in times of emergency, the other FBs play wing but Mike doesn't. The fact that he still had a good game in attack yesterday is testament to him

Brown ws very good after being caught with the bad bounce at the start. Things will get bery interesting for England once all thise injured back are available. Oddly strength in depth and we still are troubled.

I've come to the conclusion that although the England coaches are pretty hapless when it comes to coaching our backs, the reality is our backs are just not that good.

There are some things they are simply incapable of doing that should be deemed a basic. Yarde, Wade, Daly and Eastmond MAY be an exception. But I have a horrible feeling they will go the way of the rest of them.

I think we have a collection of OK backs, who are pretty one dimensional, and who are coached by an England set-up with no idea how they want to use them.

If Wood was away with Saints for the NZ 1st Test i'd want Haskell to come straight back in. Kvesic and Wallace just aren't up to it yet and we don't need to cap more flankers. Likewise I don't want to see a lock have to switch to the flank either.

Brown really isn't a wing. He did well there yesterday but it just showed why giving bench places to the 'unlucky' players rather then proper bench options isn't a good idea. Easier said then done with the injuries though but Brad and Alex shouldn't have been there. In fact most teams in an emergency will play their lightning quick reserve 9 (SA, NZ and Oz have all done this recently) on the wing but we had the slowest Int 9 in the world game on our bench.

Hood83 wrote:I've come to the conclusion that although the England coaches are pretty hapless when it comes to coaching our backs, the reality is our backs are just not that good.

There are some things they are simply incapable of doing that should be deemed a basic. Yarde, Wade, Daly and Eastmond MAY be an exception. But I have a horrible feeling they will go the way of the rest of them.

I think we have a collection of OK backs, who are pretty one dimensional, and who are coached by an England set-up with no idea how they want to use them.

But those players all look very good for their clubs where they play week in week out. Perhaps it's just a lack of game time together coupled with poor coaching? Remember that alongside pretty dire coaching the backs have never played together before at club or country level, that isn't the case with most other Int sides who draw on 4-5 clubs for their Int team.

Yesterday we had 2 Harlequins, 1 Saracens, 1 Northampton, 2 Gloucester, 1 Exeter player starting in the backs. 2 of those players were getting their first caps and neither had a club colleague in the backs with them! That has to make life harder then it would for other countries. The Gloucester boys had a combined caps of maybe 10. The Quins had what 30 combined? And Farrel had the most but had never played alongside 3 of those backs.

It was never going to be a NZ style backs display when there's that much confusion. Look how difficult the Baabaa's find life nowdays, that's almost what England have.

Oh and just to carry on the point, this is where England's coaches just aren't up to scratch in my eyes.

With 12 clubs of fairly good players to draw from you need a quality, proven coaching team who understand Int rugby and know what they want, how to get that and what sort of players they require.

Lancaster as the head man works for me. But he's not a coach, he's a manager. We need a proven head coach. We then need a proven backs/attack coach to work with our problem areas. Rowntree and Farrell are doing well enough at their jobs to stay.

Thought Care and Farrell were good for large parts yesterday. Farrell was much improved with ball in hand, and Care played with a ferocious tempo for a lot of the time.

Burrell looks a very good prospect; as does Nowell who grew steadily into the game.

Goode and Twelvetrees? Unconvincing. Brown as good as ever - fantastic finish for the first try.

More positives than negatives - I'd stick with the same team for Scotland, fitness permitting of course.

Care has a lot of caps just few starts

Duty281 wrote:Thought Care and Farrell were good for large parts yesterday. Farrell was much improved with ball in hand, and Care played with a ferocious tempo for a lot of the time.

Burrell looks a very good prospect; as does Nowell who grew steadily into the game.

Goode and Twelvetrees? Unconvincing. Brown as good as ever - fantastic finish for the first try.

More positives than negatives - I'd stick with the same team for Scotland, fitness permitting of course.

If May has a broken nose, he will not play next week. Could possibly be out for the rest of the tournament (pending the damage). So who starts on the wing for him? And then how do we see the bench shaping up?

doctor_grey wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Thought Care and Farrell were good for large parts yesterday. Farrell was much improved with ball in hand, and Care played with a ferocious tempo for a lot of the time.

Burrell looks a very good prospect; as does Nowell who grew steadily into the game.

Goode and Twelvetrees? Unconvincing. Brown as good as ever - fantastic finish for the first try.

More positives than negatives - I'd stick with the same team for Scotland, fitness permitting of course.

If May has a broken nose, he will not play next week.  Could possibly be out for the rest of the tournament (pending the damage).  So who starts on the wing for him?   And then how do we see the bench shaping up?

Um.....Ashton? Unless Lancaster fancies moving Brown to wing and replacing May with Goode, who can come in at full-back.

Or will Lancaster be even bolder and start Watson?

Oh how I wish Foden was fit to play.

It's going to be Brown on wing and Goode at 15 even though it should not

Duty281 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Thought Care and Farrell were good for large parts yesterday. Farrell was much improved with ball in hand, and Care played with a ferocious tempo for a lot of the time.

Burrell looks a very good prospect; as does Nowell who grew steadily into the game.

Goode and Twelvetrees? Unconvincing. Brown as good as ever - fantastic finish for the first try.

More positives than negatives - I'd stick with the same team for Scotland, fitness permitting of course.

If May has a broken nose, he will not play next week.  Could possibly be out for the rest of the tournament (pending the damage).  So who starts on the wing for him?   And then how do we see the bench shaping up?

Um.....Ashton? Unless Lancaster fancies moving Brown to wing and replacing May with Goode, who can come in at full-back.

Or will Lancaster be even bolder and start Watson?

Oh how I wish Foden was fit to play.

Surely Watson...

I'd be very surprised if he started Brown on the wing. Sharples?

Or, since he was in the squad this week, Watson...

Was just considering that lancaster may not want to throw in Watson on debut on the wing he hasn't really played on.

Miller should come in for Goode, at least he has pace and not just a jinky step that is telegraphed the day before it arrives

Care (but told not to box-kick)
Farrell
Brad/Burrell
Ashton
Brown
Nowell

NB 12T and Goode to be pensioned off, England to have a prayer day for the return of Manu

I believe Tony Underwood and Rory Underwood are avilable for selection.

I just don't understand why England is struggling so much to put a cohesive and dynamic Backline onto the field.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Care (but told not to box-kick)
Farrell
Brad/Burrell
Ashton
Brown
Nowell

NB 12T and Goode to be pensioned off, England to have a prayer day for the return of Manu

Barney, you make a good point about the box kickls.  But in reality England kick possession away too much.  In the second half when England were making years fairly consistently, why kick so much?  I am sure Care and the rest of the team were following the game plan.  All those up and unders are a 50/50 proposition, and when already near mid-field it seemed to make no sense.

yappysnap wrote:

Hood83 wrote:I've come to the conclusion that although the England coaches are pretty hapless when it comes to coaching our backs, the reality is our backs are just not that good.

There are some things they are simply incapable of doing that should be deemed a basic. Yarde, Wade, Daly and Eastmond MAY be an exception. But I have a horrible feeling they will go the way of the rest of them.

I think we have a collection of OK backs, who are pretty one dimensional, and who are coached by an England set-up with no idea how they want to use them.

But those players all look very good for their clubs where they play week in week out. Perhaps it's just a lack of game time together coupled with poor coaching? Remember that alongside pretty dire coaching the backs have never played together before at club or country level, that isn't the case with most other Int sides who draw on 4-5 clubs for their Int team.

Yesterday we had 2 Harlequins, 1 Saracens, 1 Northampton, 2 Gloucester, 1 Exeter player starting in the backs. 2 of those players were getting their first caps and neither had a club colleague in the backs with them! That has to make life harder then it would for other countries. The Gloucester boys had a combined caps of maybe 10. The Quins had what 30 combined? And Farrel had the most but had never played alongside 3 of those backs.

It was never going to be a NZ style backs display when there's that much confusion. Look how difficult the Baabaa's find life nowdays, that's almost what England have.

Maybe, but then did Farrell, Barritt, Goode and Ashton look a more cohesive combination, probably not. Other nationalities may be picking from fewer teams, but they still manage to gel players better in my opinion. I think that is partly coaching but partly that their players are more adaptable. A decent number of coaches have tried to get England's backs to play anything other than atrociously with each other over the past decade. Not sure many have succeeded.

Biltong wrote:I just don't understand why England is struggling so much to put a cohesive and dynamic Backline onto the field.

BT I think England are struggling to switch modes. You can't just flip a switch and change style. The team isn't being managed strongly from 9/10 and I think the only forward who knows how to link with the back line is Lawes. The back three confuse expansive rugby with helter skelter and the pack are mostly reluctant to trust the backs. England repeatedly created opportunities behind the French defensive line but invariable the team collectively panicked and kicked the ball away rather than being composed and drawing and passing and finishing.

I think it's psychological understanding of executing expansive play at speed, rather than a lack of individual potential.

Its a lot more than the backs that need to be looked at. Far too many of the forwards took the ball standing still; they take the pace off the ball and its no wonder that the backs can't do anything with it. Yesterday proved once again that we need to be fitter. Lancaster made far too many subs, some forced and some for the sake of it; this had a particularly strong impact upon the effectiveness of the backs and for me was the main reason we lost.

All the backs had issues yesterday. Care was the stand out player, but until he took the quick tap he was having a mare, his service was too slow and his kicking poor. But he came through and was the driving force for the backs. 36 and Nowell both had a ropey first 20, but both were solid thereafter doing a fair amount of unseen work; I thought 36's breakdown work was excellent. As yappy says there has to be an acknowledgment that the backs are very inexperienced; none of them deserved to be dropped and it would be a real mistake to do so.

I thought the forwards carried with better body position than usual!

doctor_grey wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Care (but told not to box-kick)
Farrell
Brad/Burrell
Ashton
Brown
Nowell

NB 12T and Goode to be pensioned off, England to have a prayer day for the return of Manu

Barney, you make a good point about the box kickls.  But in reality England kick possession away too much.  In the second half when England were making years fairly consistently, why kick so much?  I am sure Care and the rest of the team were following the game plan.  All those up and unders are a 50/50 proposition, and when already near mid-field it seemed to make no sense.

Ashton in at outside centre?

Yes please, that would be up there with bergamasco at scrumhalf

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Biltong wrote:I just don't understand why England is struggling so much to put a cohesive and dynamic Backline onto the field.

BT I think England are struggling to switch modes. You can't just flip a switch and change style. The team isn't being managed strongly from 9/10 and I think the only forward who knows how to link with the back line is Lawes. The back three confuse expansive rugby with helter skelter and the pack are mostly reluctant to trust the backs. England repeatedly created opportunities behind the French defensive line but invariable the team collectively panicked and kicked the ball away rather than being composed and drawing and passing and finishing.

I think it's psychological understanding of executing expansive play at speed, rather than a lack of individual potential.

good post GE, yes I understand what you are saying and agree when you look at the missed passes and offloads, players out of position it certainly does look like they aren't bringing the thought process of expansive rugby together.

The point of the expansive game is to punch holes for the support runner and they aren't achieving that, so when they do offload the runner has no space, is often on the backfoot and therefor has no momentum to punch the next ehole.

ChequeredJersey wrote:I thought the forwards carried with better body position than usual!

I agree, but it was only effective when hitting the ball with pace. Tom Wood for all his endeavour just kept taking the ball stationary. Robshaw was guilty of it too. They did plenty of good work, I just think the use of forwards needs to be looked at.

I'd start with Eastmond and Burrell.

36 has offered little since coming into the team.

Id have to point the finger at backs coaches as well as team coach. Is there a rift? Or a power struggle? Seems to be.

Look at the simple try Ireland just scored from their lineout, ball passed at pace down the line to players running on to it.

When was the last time the English backs scored one like that? I genuinely think it was over a year ago now against Scotland (Twelvetrees).

And that is a very simple move.

Biltong wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Biltong wrote:I just don't understand why England is struggling so much to put a cohesive and dynamic Backline onto the field.

BT I think England are struggling to switch modes. You can't just flip a switch and change style. The team isn't being managed strongly from 9/10 and I think the only forward who knows how to link with the back line is Lawes. The back three confuse expansive rugby with helter skelter and the pack are mostly reluctant to trust the backs. England repeatedly created opportunities behind the French defensive line but invariable the team collectively panicked and kicked the ball away rather than being composed and drawing and passing and finishing.

I think it's psychological understanding of executing expansive play at speed, rather than a lack of individual potential.

good post GE, yes I understand what you are saying and agree when you look at the missed passes and offloads, players out of position it certainly does look like they aren't bringing the thought process of expansive rugby together.

The point of the expansive game is to punch holes for the support runner and they aren't achieving that, so when they do offload the runner has no space, is often on the backfoot and therefor has no momentum to punch the next ehole.

On top of that Mako made two brilliant brakes, both times he had no support to offload to. Likewise Farrel for his break. No support.

ChequeredJersey wrote:I thought the forwards carried with better body position than usual!

Lawes' body angle is certainly better. He gets lower and hits at greater speed these days. I think it helps that he seems to be filling out a bit too and is less rangy and more solid. He made some good support runs out wide. Tkae note backs! There's still a fair bit of work to be done on cohesion.

See above!

Ireland's try was mostly formed by poor positioning by Hogg though!

Biltong wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Biltong wrote:I just don't understand why England is struggling so much to put a cohesive and dynamic Backline onto the field.

BT I think England are struggling to switch modes. You can't just flip a switch and change style. The team isn't being managed strongly from 9/10 and I think the only forward who knows how to link with the back line is Lawes. The back three confuse expansive rugby with helter skelter and the pack are mostly reluctant to trust the backs. England repeatedly created opportunities behind the French defensive line but invariable the team collectively panicked and kicked the ball away rather than being composed and drawing and passing and finishing.

I think it's psychological understanding of executing expansive play at speed, rather than a lack of individual potential.

good post GE, yes I understand what you are saying and agree when you look at the missed passes and offloads, players out of position it certainly does look like they aren't bringing the thought process of expansive rugby together.

The point of the expansive game is to punch holes for the support runner and they aren't achieving that, so when they do offload the runner has no space, is often on the backfoot and therefor has no momentum to punch the next ehole.

Not sure if it panicking or whether they are not sure where the support is coming from.  Combined with not enough players tracking the play in the right lanes. They do this with no problems for their clubs, so should be able to do it for England, it's just happening a bit faster.  It is no surprise Burrell got his try from tracking play, nor that Lawes was hitting in right.  This is exactly how Saints play.  All of which makes me concerned that Alex King, Saints attack coach, is destined for England after the season.  And given one year to sort this out.

doctor_grey wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Biltong wrote:I just don't understand why England is struggling so much to put a cohesive and dynamic Backline onto the field.

BT I think England are struggling to switch modes. You can't just flip a switch and change style. The team isn't being managed strongly from 9/10 and I think the only forward who knows how to link with the back line is Lawes. The back three confuse expansive rugby with helter skelter and the pack are mostly reluctant to trust the backs. England repeatedly created opportunities behind the French defensive line but invariable the team collectively panicked and kicked the ball away rather than being composed and drawing and passing and finishing.

I think it's psychological understanding of executing expansive play at speed, rather than a lack of individual potential.

good post GE, yes I understand what you are saying and agree when you look at the missed passes and offloads, players out of position it certainly does look like they aren't bringing the thought process of expansive rugby together.

The point of the expansive game is to punch holes for the support runner and they aren't achieving that, so when they do offload the runner has no space, is often on the backfoot and therefor has no momentum to punch the next ehole.

Not sure if it panicking or whether they are not sure where the support is coming from.  Combined with not enough players tracking the play in the right lanes.  They do this with no problems for their clubs, so should be able to do it for England, it's just happening a bit faster.  It is no surprise Burrell got his try from tracking play, nor that Lawes was hitting in right.  This is exactly how Saints play.  All of which makes me concerned that Alex King, Saints attack coach, is destined for England after the season.  And given one year to sort this out.

I'd love for Alex King to join the coaching staff!! When SL was assembling his coaching team i was devastated that we missed out on Wayne Smith, our defence and forward play have on the whole been very very good. Add a razor attack to that and we be in business!

Great for England, not so good for Saints. Saints personnel is made for that system (or the system was put in place to take advantage of their strengths). Most Saints matches are similar, power up front, create off-loads, eventually create space. This season not many teams have coped with it. And it is a simple game plan. And would have been perfect yesterday. I saw Hartley at least three times come up to take an off-load which simply was not offered. Drove me nuts.