THE NUCLEAR BOMBER OPTION

First topic message reminder :


I was recently challenged on another tread along the lines that I would prefer for England to lose games as if it were a means to removing Lancaster. I countered that I want England to win each and every game and thus the world cup.

However the reason for writing this thread is 'What if England loses all 3 of their SANZAR games this autumn' and lose each poorly showing little direction, passion and are generally clueless? I'm not talking about close losses or games in which we play 100% and learn learn learn but lose by 15 points, where performance wins out over result. No I'm talking about bloody disasters.

So if this were to come to pass where would YOU stand, what would YOUR opinion be with regards to Lancaster’s future? Would you see it as another blip along the long road to success in 2019 or would you consider that we cannot continue as we are and to do so would be a mistake, and therefore would you be prepared to remove Lancaster now, this December?

Now you might think less than a year before our own World Cup to remove your DoR (and the existing coaches) would be madness and anyway who is there that would replace him?

Well my answer would be to go to the Premiership clubs requesting that they provide the coaches on an ongoing part time basis up to the end of the 2015 WC.

I would happily support the following pool of coaches led by Jim Malinder;

Baxter
Diamond
Gustard
King
Ford
O'Shea

Obviously this is a hypothetical question, however given we are less than 4 weeks from facing the All Blacks and there is now no excuses left for Lancaster, what would your decision be, WOULD YOU DROP THE BOMBER?

I'd just add in passing that I saw somewhere that Brian Ashton has been brought in for a couple of days at the weekend. Pulling in the right experts at the right time is a good sign..

Great call...but makes you wonder why not just employ Ashton in the first place over Catt if he's not performing?

Quins,

Im not saying his template is the correct....its just as i see it. Sinces he came in thats been his choice of player in the back row..(flankers). No blindside / openside - just left and right. I maybe wrong of course.
I would go so far to say the locks follow a similar model...Parling / Lawes / Launchbury all started their early careers in the prem as 6's and then moved to lock.
The all offer similar traits. Its a clear trend of what he wants from his team.

Is it right or wrong? Well ive been quite vocal about bringing an extra bit of power and specialising in, but its too late now so close to the WC.

i am familiar with the arguments obviously. but at a more fundamental level, where do the points come from? all well and good to have "lungs", "great engines" and "lion-esque courage".

but we need players who can score tries or win penalties. and frankly, man for man i really dont see our backline as anywhere near the try-scoring potential of Aus, NZ or SA. or Wales if they actually stopped playing Gatball.

therefore, that is why i feel we need a player with impact on the ground who can win penalties in key areas of the field that can be converted to points.

i dont think the key issues why he wouldnt be picked are player release and conditioning. the only issue is that they arent prepared to make an exception for Armitage.

conditioning and fitness a-la Bomber style is a more recent development than the policy of not selecting overseas players.

if you genuinely think that an impact player like Armitage couldnt come off the bench for 30minutes and operate at the same level Robshaw does for 80 (actually robshaw usually runs out of gas for England after about 60 mins which is why he's usually too knackered to lead effectively at that point), then fair enough. personally i think he would be an awesome last 30minute kind of option for england. especially in a tight game.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

I'd just add in passing that I saw somewhere that Brian Ashton has been brought in for a couple of days at the weekend. Pulling in the right experts at the right time is a good sign..

Great call...but makes you wonder why not just employ Ashton in the first place over Catt if he's not performing?

Quins,

Im not saying his template is the correct....its just as i see it. Sinces he came in thats been his choice of player in the back row..(flankers). No blindside / openside - just left and right. I maybe wrong of course.
I would go so far to say the locks follow a similar model...Parling / Lawes / Launchbury all started their early careers in the prem as 6's and then moved to lock.
The all offer similar traits. Its a clear trend of what he wants from his team.

Is it right or wrong? Well ive been quite vocal about bringing an extra bit of power and specialising in, but its too late now so close to the WC.

i agree with you. it certainly looks that way.

and i am a huge fan of the lawes/launchbury combo. even if occasionally concerned that our scrum isnt as strong as i would like. but not quite as convinced about our flankers.

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well you may have said that as well but 30th Nov last year you were saying Wade Ashton Ojo and May were the fit and credible wingers.

Discounting the actual squad whats the 23 you d like to see?

And before this ancient 'cornish' laptop crashes again;

Injuries ae a real issue.

Marler
Webber
Wilson
Lawes
Launchbury
Kvesic
Vunipola
Robshaw(c)
Care
Cipriani
Wade
Twelvetrees
Joseph
Yarde
Foden

Props x 2.......opps
Hartley
Attwood
Morgan
Youngs
Slade
Watson

More injuries; Eastmond, Burrell

Not selected; Brown or Streatle, Ashton

I see the Guardian have BB at 13......another appalling Lancaster selection. Joseph in his best form in years overlooked for a flanker who plays 12 who only very occasionally plays 13. And you guys really think stewie has a clue?

More emporers new clothes bs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11196506/Revealed-How-Stuart-Lancaster-transformed-England-from-national-laughing-stock-into-World-Cup-hopefuls.html

kingelderfield wrote:More emporers new clothes bs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11196506/Revealed-How-Stuart-Lancaster-transformed-England-from-national-laughing-stock-into-World-Cup-hopefuls.html

An interesting article. Will be interesting to know whether that inspires English rugby fans confidence in their coach or not.

kingelderfield wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well you may have said that as well but 30th Nov last year you were saying Wade Ashton Ojo and May were the fit and credible wingers.

Discounting the actual squad whats the 23 you d like to see?

And before this ancient 'cornish' laptop crashes again;

Injuries ae a real issue.

Marler
Webber
Wilson
Lawes
Launchbury
Kvesic
Vunipola
Robshaw(c)
Care
Cipriani
Wade
Twelvetrees
Joseph
Yarde
Foden

Props x 2.......opps
Hartley
Attwood
Morgan
Youngs
Slade
Watson

More injuries; Eastmond, Burrell

Not selected; Brown or Streatle, Ashton

I see the Guardian have BB at 13......another appalling Lancaster selection. Joseph in his best form in years overlooked for a flanker who plays 12 who only very occasionally plays 13. And you guys really think stewie has a clue?

Always prefer for the side to be named then pull it apart. I d still be more concerned about no props on the bench no Wood no Brown and Slade covering 10!

Ofcourse I would select props, probably as GeordieFalcon mentioned earlier in the thread. The point I was making was that our props have been depleted by injury and so we're now selecting 3rd choices. Furthermore I don't agree with playing them until they break which seems to be the current thinking.
As for Wood, well this is simple enough. I believe we need to play a 6,7 and an 8, not two 6's. Preferably, I would have selected the european player of the year either as an exceptional or by way of season loan to an AP side(somthing stewie could of encouraged).
36 can cover 10.

Marler and Wison have both played alot you wouldnt rest them?

So now no Kvesic but Id still worry about the lineout.

Twelvetrees being forced to 10 is not something Id relish. The main point is there are a lot of options stop harping on that Lancaster doesnt go with some of the more left field thinking.

I'm interested to know your AI predictions and who would be your starting 15 next saturday?

Some questions over fitness based on Burrell being out and Marler fit and on Lancasters squad Id have:

Marler
Hartley
Wilson
Lawes
Launchbury
Wood
Robshaw
Vunipola
Yarde
Care
Ford
Twelvetrees
Barritt
Rokoduguni
Brown

Subs Mullen Webber Brookes Attwood Morgan Dickson Farrell Foden.

Id have Wade ahead of Rokoduguni and ideally Eastmond on the bench but I cant quite cover full back. Possibly Nowell in for Yarde so that could happen.

I appreciate the need of a solid centre partnership, i've been open to Burrell and Tuilagi with either of Cipriani or Ford at 10, but I just don't get Barritt at 13.

It is undoubtedly a retrograde selection and typical of the appalling stupidity of Lancaster et al.

The thought process is that he can defend the 12 channel while still offering the opportunity to play a ball playing 12. Although 36 is good at defending Barritt is the best we have and just protects Ford in his full debut. Barritt is also an under rated carrier. If either Burrell or Tuilagi are fit I wouldnt start him. Appalling stupidity for me is 36 at fly half if anything goes wrong.

I don't know why you guys bother arguing with elderfield, he's been predicting disaster scorelines for England under Lancaster for every series of internationals since he took over.  He's the sort of poster that once he's made a judgement doubles down no matter what.

Im still trying to decide if hes genuine or a WUM. Predictions are a loss by 10 to NZ and 2 wins by less than 5 to SA and Aus as things stand.

in defense of kingelderfied. lets be honest we all know that coaches take credit for teams wins. that doesnt actually mean they are any good, as sometimes teams win in spite of average coaching staff (rwc2007), or lose in spite of strong coaching staff. its very hard to separate the contribution of the coach from the contribution of the players.

so just because we have been close to winning the 6Ns for the last 2 years, and have a couple of good results against NZ and Aus (but not SA), doesnt prove the Bomber is the real deal yet. in my opinion.

expectations were very very low, and he exceeded them, winning himself the permanent job. expectations are now a lot higher. lets see how we/he goes.

kingelderfield wrote:I appreciate the need of a solid centre partnership, i've been open to Burrell and Tuilagi with either of Cipriani or Ford at 10, but I just don't get Barritt at 13.

It is undoubtedly a retrograde selection and typical of the appalling stupidity of Lancaster et al.

And Lancaster would probably be open to Burrell and Tuilagi as well. If they weren't both injured. I assume you'd favour Eastmond and Joseph, a totally unproven partnership with less than 5 caps between them. Against the All Blacks. And that's the alternative to "appalling stupidity"?

quinsforever wrote:in defense of kingelderfied. lets be honest we all know that coaches take credit for teams wins. that doesnt actually mean they are any good, as sometimes teams win in spite of average coaching staff (rwc2007), or lose in spite of strong coaching staff. its very hard to separate the contribution of the coach from the contribution of the players.

so just because we have been close to winning the 6Ns for the last 2 years, and have a couple of good results against NZ and Aus (but not SA), doesnt prove the Bomber is the real deal yet. in my opinion.

expectations were very very low, and he exceeded them, winning himself the permanent job.  expectations are now a lot higher. lets see how we/he goes.

That is all true to a degree. What you do have to think of is the things that a coach can influence that are most notable, and what Lancaster has done is create a disciplined environment which the players obviously respond to. I cant imagine the crap that Australia has gone through happening on his watch.

totally agree with that lost. i like the respect for the shirt stuff, and introduction of lots of young players.

kingelderfield wrote:More emporers new clothes bs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11196506/Revealed-How-Stuart-Lancaster-transformed-England-from-national-laughing-stock-into-World-Cup-hopefuls.html

Can you really not see that he's done lots of positive and intelligent things, and that he's moved the England team forward very quickly.

He's obviously not perfect (who is), but from what I can see he's respected by coaches around the world, by the players, and also the media. I really can't see what he's doing to justify the level of criticism you constantly aim at him.

niwatts wrote:I don't know why you guys bother arguing with elderfield, he's been predicting disaster scorelines for England under Lancaster for every series of internationals since he took over.  He's the sort of poster that once he's made a judgement doubles down no matter what.

Not true.

1st June Test I was probably the only poster who was predicting a win - the closeness of that game was of no surprise to me.

Check your facts.

kingelderfield wrote:

niwatts wrote:I don't know why you guys bother arguing with elderfield, he's been predicting disaster scorelines for England under Lancaster for every series of internationals since he took over.  He's the sort of poster that once he's made a judgement doubles down no matter what.

Not true.

1st June Test I was probably the only poster who was predicting a win - the closeness of that game was of no surprise to me.

Check your facts.

So of you think a clearly understrength England side is favourite to win a game against this ABs side away from home, you can't think SL is doing that bad a job.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Im still trying to decide if hes genuine or a WUM. Predictions are a loss by 10 to NZ and 2 wins by less than 5 to SA and Aus as things stand.

Oh you are funny. When have I ever seriously wummed on here?

You know full well I am sincere, though I admit, a little too zealous at times. So none of that please.

Your predictions are very bold and I hope you're right and I'm am wrong, however having watched the recent SH games and taking into account our decimation by injury - before you even factor in the 'bomber' predicament - and I cannot see us winning any of the big 3 games (unless Ozy freeze either literally or metaphorically).

The margin of defeat is what is really worrying me.

If we lose to Somoa, well I'd hope by then he will do the decent thing and walk. In the meantime I'm preparing myself for plenty of rfu propaganda about history walls and walking with the people through the west car park of twickenham, and other lines of regurgitated poopie.

Come on guys, this fella is a poor judge of international class. A quick google of the words 'kingelderfield' and 'selection' brings up a post from two years ago that tells you everything you need to know about his longterm judgement of players.

kingelderfield wrote:Kingelderfield's England backline selecection;

Simpson, Burns, Ojo, Twelvetrees, Tuilagi, Sharples, May

Poorfour wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:I appreciate the need of a solid centre partnership, i've been open to Burrell and Tuilagi with either of Cipriani or Ford at 10, but I just don't get Barritt at 13.

It is undoubtedly a retrograde selection and typical of the appalling stupidity of Lancaster et al.

And Lancaster would probably be open to Burrell and Tuilagi as well. If they weren't both injured. I assume you'd favour Eastmond and Joseph, a totally unproven partnership with less than 5 caps between them. Against the All Blacks. And that's the alternative to "appalling stupidity"?

Go there if you want Poorfour I've already mentioned early in the thread I'm not concerned with breaking a few eggs to make my point. And while your at it you'll also note who I'd select in the circumstances.

Very lazy wuming.

DaveM wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:More emporers new clothes bs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11196506/Revealed-How-Stuart-Lancaster-transformed-England-from-national-laughing-stock-into-World-Cup-hopefuls.html

Can you really not see that he's done lots of positive and intelligent things, and that he's moved the England team forward very quickly.

He's obviously not perfect (who is), but from what I can see he's respected by coaches around the world, by the players, and also the media. I really can't see what he's doing to justify the level of criticism you constantly aim at him.

What he has done in terms of off the field disciplines is the very least of what is expected - so no argument there. However regardless of all the media spin from him and the rfu, where I take issue is with the very fundamentals of his coaching ability interms of stratergy, selection and executition thereof.

He has been naive throughout his tenure and as far as I can see does not understand what is required to win international rugby matches of the 1st order and thus will never deliver on a 2nd England WC. Winning the WC is the strait forward expectation.

As for respect within the game and media etc. This is professional sport and only a halfwit is going to diss him in public.

Results are what matter.

DaveM wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

niwatts wrote:I don't know why you guys bother arguing with elderfield, he's been predicting disaster scorelines for England under Lancaster for every series of internationals since he took over.  He's the sort of poster that once he's made a judgement doubles down no matter what.

Not true.

1st June Test I was probably the only poster who was predicting a win - the closeness of that game was of no surprise to me.

Check your facts.

So of you think a clearly understrength England side is favourite to win a game against this ABs side away from home, you can't think SL is doing that bad a job.

It was purely circumstance. Fortunately for various reasons he had few options and so the selection was generally made for him.

Later in the tour when he did have options and thus decisions to make he generally balls them up. The AB's would have won those games anyway having got the wrinkles out of their game by then, being better coached, being better players, not playing at the end of a ridiculously long season that is mostly behind the current injury crisis we're enduring, and finally becuase they were playing at home.

markb wrote:Come on guys, this fella is a poor judge of international class. A quick google of the words 'kingelderfield' and 'selection' brings up a post from two years ago that tells you everything you need to know about his longterm judgement of players.

kingelderfield wrote:Kingelderfield's England backline selecection;

Simpson, Burns, Ojo, Twelvetrees, Tuilagi, Sharples, May

Wonderful out of context quote i'm sure.

Very quiet in here isn't it.

If you re not a wum then fair enough but you dont appear very balanced in your judgement.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If you re not a wum then fair enough but you dont appear very balanced in your judgement.

'unbalanced judgement'

Thanks 7&1/2, you really.............honestly reading that did make me laugh

It these comments in response which make me think you re a bit of a wum.

kingelderfield wrote:

DaveM wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

niwatts wrote:I don't know why you guys bother arguing with elderfield, he's been predicting disaster scorelines for England under Lancaster for every series of internationals since he took over.  He's the sort of poster that once he's made a judgement doubles down no matter what.

Not true.

1st June Test I was probably the only poster who was predicting a win - the closeness of that game was of no surprise to me.

Check your facts.

So of you think a clearly understrength England side is favourite to win a game against this ABs side away from home, you can't think SL is doing that bad a job.

It was purely circumstance. Fortunately for various reasons he had few options and so the selection was generally made for him.

Later in the tour when he did have options and thus decisions to make he generally balls them up. The AB's would have won those games anyway having got the wrinkles out of their game by then, being better coached, being better players, not playing at the end of a ridiculously long season that is mostly behind the current injury crisis we're enduring, and finally becuase they were playing at home.

Whatever the circumstances, for you to think England were favourites in NZ has presumably only every happened once before in all the years you've followed English rugby (and on that occasion it involved the best England side ever), so it's noteworthy wouldn't you say?

I don't know if you've spent time in both camps to be so certain that NZ are better coached? SL can hardly change the fact that NZ have the better players or were playing at home or that many of his players were knackered and/or broken.

All in all, if you really did believe (rather than just say) that England were favourites then I'm struggling to reconcile that with your view that SL is a terrible coach. The alternative was that you were predicting an England win for some arcane tactical reasons.

As I recall my resaons were;

it was the All Blacks first game of the season and they had had limited time together - traditionally they are at their weakessed first game up (though it should be noted they have been weak in their last two season games as well, england 2012 & ireland 2013)

and because the english side available had a good 'fit' of players who were (and this is the key point as is often the case in rugby - top 2 inches etc.) psychologically primed to perform. Few of them were either the coaches first choices or the available first choice and therefore were under dogs who had been written off by all concerned. The fact was they all had a point to prove.

This was the crux of my determination.

Therefore SL was not the deliberate motivating factor, but as I said before, 'circumstance'.

p.s obviously you can check the threads to confirm my recollection.

kingelderfield wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I think if England can keep the margin of defeat below twenty points on Saturday, and still be in the game at half-time, then that will be a decent accomplishment.

Can't expect any better with this farcical scheduling.

I'm more confident than that and think it will be 5/10 points EITHER WAY.

https://www.606v2.com/t54105p150-englands-summer-tour-of-nz-the-rugby


If that's predicting a win, what's hedging your bets?

Here's a couple of my other comments from the same thread.

All said and done I do have a good feeling about this, the fact that our backs are against the wall and yet individually there is so much to play for.....and ofcourse....England expects......


andyi where are you seeing those odds? Add's a little spice.

Ofcourse I am being hugely optimistic. The thing is 'I've got a feeling'..........

Chillingly definitive!

I love how you dance around the words will and win.

So Splenetic what are your predictions for the AI's? (deja vu).........

Ok so the side has been named for tomorrow's game, and lets be honest its a dogs dinner of a backline.

I have suggested my alternative of; care, Cipriani, wade,36, JJ, watson & Foden and obviously bomber has a very different approach. I obviously believe you have to score more points than the opposition to win a game of rugby, where as Lancaster......well who really knows what he thinks he believes.

So there is a real alternative to this saturdays selection, even when injuries are considered and so lets see Lancaster live or die by his choices.

I just can't wait to see OF moved to IC when they bring Ford on with 3 minutes to play.

So you've dropped Yarde now as well for Watson. Have you seen NZ backline and do you think your choice would stand up to it defensively?

kingelderfield wrote:Ok so the side has been named for tomorrow's game, and lets be honest its a dogs dinner of a backline.

I have suggested my alternative of; care, Cipriani, wade,36, JJ, watson & Foden and obviously bomber has a very different approach. I obviously believe you have to score more points than the opposition to win a game of rugby, where as Lancaster......well who really knows what he thinks he believes.

So there is a real alternative to this saturdays selection, even when injuries are considered and so lets see Lancaster live or die by his choices.

I just can't wait to see OF moved to IC when they bring Ford on with 3 minutes to play.

Three potential revolving doors in the back line against the ABs, not the way any other int. manager/coach would go if he had the choice.

Your next post is critical of including Watson on the bench; a player that you had in your starting 15, over a player you did not pick at all who you now think should be at least on the bench although he covers only one position.

Wouldn't drop Bomber but he needs to stop making stupid decisions which have been costly like throwing a rookie in against France away from home (who consequently made two errors which led to two tries for France), putting full backs on the wing repeatedly/playing players out of position and playing players who are fatigued/not in form (e.g. Farrell Jr).

To be fair to Lancaster he has shown some competence by dropping the out of form Yarde, he's picked two in form wingers, Barritt is there to have an experienced defensive leader in the backline (you might dislike him but he's got experience beating the ABs and has been in good form this season)

I will be like this if he puts Farrell in the centres if he brings Ford on.

I would have picked Ford instead of Farrell Jr at 10 but I can understand why Lancaster didn't.

Lancaster's backline selection actually makes a lot of sense bar Farrell Jr (but he didn't have a good alternative - throwing any fly half against NZ is tough in the circumstances).

Agree with well past it - kingelderfield you're backline is defensively weak plus there is no coherency between the players. It would be torn to shreds.

Yes you need to score more points than the opposition but your backline would allow the NZ backs to run rampant.

Summary: in general Lancaster has done a good job but still makes some nonsensical errors which cost England.

Well past it,

You obviously havn't watched Cipriani over the past 12 months then have you.

Joseph has been the form english oc this season, he is streets ahead of your road block flanker stratergy, what a dumb idea that is to play a defensive ic as an oc.

Don't you get it they will just run round BB and by way of return he will offer absolutely nothing in attack, NOTHING!

We do not have a winger of the likes of Cohen who could take on Savea so we have to play inteligently and at all cost stop the AB's counter attacking game and that means keepling the ball in hand and kicking either to touch or only where we have an attacking chase.

Of bombers 15 only Care Farrell and Brown offer a genuine boot and realistically only Care's grubbers offer any attacking opportunity. All other kicking options must be heavy scrutinised and appropriately curtailed.

Ball in hand attack is the best stratergy especially when played on the back of a robust and dynamic forward pack.

Kicking the ball away and back to the All Blacks as we shall see from Farrell and Care tomorrow is a dumb idea and open invitation for them to exploit their greater attacking threat. All the hard work of the forwards will be wasted.

AB's by 25+

beshocked wrote:Wouldn't drop Bomber but he needs to stop making stupid decisions which have been costly like throwing a rookie in against France away from home (who consequently made two errors which led to two tries for France), putting full backs on the wing repeatedly/playing players out of position and playing players who are fatigued/not in form (e.g. Farrell Jr).

To be fair to Lancaster he has shown some competence by dropping the out of form Yarde, he's picked two in form wingers, Barritt is there to have an experienced defensive leader in the backline (you might dislike him but he's got experience beating the ABs and has been in good form this season)

I will be like this   if he puts Farrell in the centres if he brings Ford on.

I would have picked Ford instead of Farrell Jr at 10 but I can understand why Lancaster didn't.

Lancaster's backline selection actually makes a lot of sense bar Farrell Jr (but he didn't have a good alternative - throwing any fly half against NZ is tough in the circumstances).

Agree with well past it - kingelderfield you're backline is defensively weak plus there is no coherency between the players. It would be torn to shreds.

Yes you need to score more points than the opposition but your backline would allow the NZ backs to run rampant.

Summary: in general Lancaster has done a good job but still makes some nonsensical errors which cost England.

Just to again pick you up on that it wasn't the rookie winger making errors. You could more easily point to Goode.

kingelderfield

How much international experience does Joseph have?

Barritt is a leader, Joseph is not. Barritt is reputable for his strong defense, what is Joseph known for?

Barritt offered nothing in attack when he scored a try vs the ABs in 2012.......

Barritt was at 13 when England crushed Scotland at Twickenham, he also successfully nullified BOD in Ireland.

The funny thing about Barritt is that he actually allows the ball to get to the wingers....

No 7&1/2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Wouldn't drop Bomber but he needs to stop making stupid decisions which have been costly like throwing a rookie in against France away from home (who consequently made two errors which led to two tries for France), putting full backs on the wing repeatedly/playing players out of position and playing players who are fatigued/not in form (e.g. Farrell Jr).

To be fair to Lancaster he has shown some competence by dropping the out of form Yarde, he's picked two in form wingers, Barritt is there to have an experienced defensive leader in the backline (you might dislike him but he's got experience beating the ABs and has been in good form this season)

I will be like this   if he puts Farrell in the centres if he brings Ford on.

I would have picked Ford instead of Farrell Jr at 10 but I can understand why Lancaster didn't.

Lancaster's backline selection actually makes a lot of sense bar Farrell Jr (but he didn't have a good alternative - throwing any fly half against NZ is tough in the circumstances).

Agree with well past it - kingelderfield you're backline is defensively weak plus there is no coherency between the players. It would be torn to shreds.

Yes you need to score more points than the opposition but your backline would allow the NZ backs to run rampant.

Summary: in general Lancaster has done a good job but still makes some nonsensical errors which cost England.

Just to again pick you up on that it wasn't the rookie winger making errors. You could more easily point to Goode.

Stop trying to deflect criticism away from Nowell - he was guilty of two costly errors. Nowell was a rookie in his first start for England - it was unfair by Lancaster and the selection was very costly.

Nowell knocked on straight away - 1st try, Nowell fails to catch ball - 2nd try.

Nowell was not the sole reason why England lost to France but he made two errors in France's first two tries.

You would have a case if Nowell wasn't at all involved in the two tries being scored....but he was....

It wasn't Goode who used mind control to make Nowell knock on for the first try. 2nd try - sure Goode should have done more but it was both Nowell and Goode at fault due to miscommunication. Both players - not one.

Pretty sure Goode was forced out of position onto the wing too - a normal Lancaster selection.

To be honest I blame Lancaster more than the players - always have. Both Nowell and Goode were given a thankless task by Lancaster.

Lancaster cost England the GS.

Cips is as he always as good on the offensive, but still isn't close to OF defensively and makes too many weak tackles rather than full blooded ones. Someone like Myler is a lot smaller than Cips, but manages to tackle twice as hard.

JJ is going well for Bath, but still has defensive lapses, 36 is so off form he would be lucky to make the Saxons at the moment; Wade is a long way off being an international winger in my opinion, once he learns to position himself properly, not fall off s many tackles and develops a kicking game, then he will be possibly world class. At the moment he is definitely work in progress and against the ABs on a wet day in November a poor option.

BB will play 12 defensively and 13 offensive, so if they are running round him, Eastmond and the back row are not doing their job, not that I can remember any running around BB before, he is a rock defensively.

If we were going to simply kick the ball away, Eastmond would not be playing, no point in having a flair 12 if he is just their to chase, I would expect to see Brown and the wingers coming off his shoulder quite a bit.

With regard to kicking, BB has not got a bad boot when called to use it and May has a sledge hammer of a boot distance wise, although accuracy is not always great.

beshocked wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Wouldn't drop Bomber but he needs to stop making stupid decisions which have been costly like throwing a rookie in against France away from home (who consequently made two errors which led to two tries for France), putting full backs on the wing repeatedly/playing players out of position and playing players who are fatigued/not in form (e.g. Farrell Jr).

To be fair to Lancaster he has shown some competence by dropping the out of form Yarde, he's picked two in form wingers, Barritt is there to have an experienced defensive leader in the backline (you might dislike him but he's got experience beating the ABs and has been in good form this season)

I will be like this   if he puts Farrell in the centres if he brings Ford on.

I would have picked Ford instead of Farrell Jr at 10 but I can understand why Lancaster didn't.

Lancaster's backline selection actually makes a lot of sense bar Farrell Jr (but he didn't have a good alternative - throwing any fly half against NZ is tough in the circumstances).

Agree with well past it - kingelderfield you're backline is defensively weak plus there is no coherency between the players. It would be torn to shreds.

Yes you need to score more points than the opposition but your backline would allow the NZ backs to run rampant.

Summary: in general Lancaster has done a good job but still makes some nonsensical errors which cost England.

Just to again pick you up on that it wasn't the rookie winger making errors. You could more easily point to Goode.

Stop trying to deflect criticism away from Nowell - he was guilty of two costly errors. Nowell was a rookie in his first start for England - it was unfair by Lancaster and the selection was very costly.

Nowell knocked on straight away - 1st try, Nowell fails to catch ball - 2nd try.

Nowell was not the sole reason why England lost to France but he made two errors in France's first two tries.

You would have a case if Nowell wasn't at all involved in the two tries being scored....but he was....

It wasn't Goode who used mind control to make Nowell knock on for the first try. 2nd try - sure Goode should have done more but it was both Nowell and Goode at fault due to miscommunication. Both players - not one.

Pretty sure Goode was forced out of position onto the wing too - a normal Lancaster selection.

A knock on resulted directly in the try? No it didn't, you could easily say that anyone knocking on shouldn't be picked silly to me. 2nd one Goode fails to catch the ball in the covering full back. and for the 3rd try Goode fails to chase back making the conversion easier than it could be. As you say he was involved but not the only one so stop picking out only him.

kingelderfield wrote:Well past it,

You obviously havn't watched Cipriani over the past 12 months then have you.

Joseph has been the form english oc this season, he is streets ahead of your road block flanker stratergy, what a dumb idea that is to play a defensive ic as an oc.

Don't you get it they will just run round BB and by way of return he will offer absolutely nothing in attack, NOTHING!

We do not have a winger of the likes of Cohen who could take on Savea so we have to play inteligently and at all cost stop the AB's counter attacking game and that means keepling the ball in hand and kicking either to touch or only where we have an attacking chase.

Of bombers 15 only Care Farrell and Brown offer a genuine boot and realistically only Care's grubbers offer any attacking opportunity. All other kicking options must be heavy scrutinised and appropriately curtailed.

Ball in hand attack is the best stratergy especially when played on the back of a robust and dynamic forward pack.

Kicking the ball away and back to the All Blacks as we shall see from Farrell and Care tomorrow is a dumb idea and open invitation for them to exploit their greater attacking threat. All the hard work of the forwards will be wasted.

AB's by 25+

You think your picks are good enough defensively though? As a unit I don't

Beshocked he made a few errors but wasnt helped by some more senior players around him either...who ballsed up aswell.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Wouldn't drop Bomber but he needs to stop making stupid decisions which have been costly like throwing a rookie in against France away from home (who consequently made two errors which led to two tries for France), putting full backs on the wing repeatedly/playing players out of position and playing players who are fatigued/not in form (e.g. Farrell Jr).

To be fair to Lancaster he has shown some competence by dropping the out of form Yarde, he's picked two in form wingers, Barritt is there to have an experienced defensive leader in the backline (you might dislike him but he's got experience beating the ABs and has been in good form this season)

I will be like this   if he puts Farrell in the centres if he brings Ford on.

I would have picked Ford instead of Farrell Jr at 10 but I can understand why Lancaster didn't.

Lancaster's backline selection actually makes a lot of sense bar Farrell Jr (but he didn't have a good alternative - throwing any fly half against NZ is tough in the circumstances).

Agree with well past it - kingelderfield you're backline is defensively weak plus there is no coherency between the players. It would be torn to shreds.

Yes you need to score more points than the opposition but your backline would allow the NZ backs to run rampant.

Summary: in general Lancaster has done a good job but still makes some nonsensical errors which cost England.

Just to again pick you up on that it wasn't the rookie winger making errors. You could more easily point to Goode.

Stop trying to deflect criticism away from Nowell - he was guilty of two costly errors. Nowell was a rookie in his first start for England - it was unfair by Lancaster and the selection was very costly.

Nowell knocked on straight away - 1st try, Nowell fails to catch ball - 2nd try.

Nowell was not the sole reason why England lost to France but he made two errors in France's first two tries.

You would have a case if Nowell wasn't at all involved in the two tries being scored....but he was....

It wasn't Goode who used mind control to make Nowell knock on for the first try. 2nd try - sure Goode should have done more but it was both Nowell and Goode at fault due to miscommunication. Both players - not one.

Pretty sure Goode was forced out of position onto the wing too - a normal Lancaster selection.

A knock on resulted directly in the try? No it didn't, you could easily say that anyone knocking on shouldn't be picked silly to me. 2nd one Goode fails to catch the ball in the covering full back. and for the 3rd try Goode fails to chase back making the conversion easier than it could be. As you say he was involved but not the only one so stop picking out only him.

Actually thinking back it was Barritt I think who doesn't chase back it was Goode who bought a dummy allowing Fickou on the inside?