THE NUCLEAR BOMBER OPTION

by kingelderfield Mon 13 Oct - 23:02

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?

by WELL-PAST-IT Fri 7 Nov - 11:52

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.

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.

]

I think you will find that it was Brown that was forced out onto the wing when May had his nose broken, the problem of picking an out and out 15 on the bench, if any other back gets hurt you have a problem.

by kingelderfield Fri 7 Nov - 11:53

beshocked wrote:kingelderfield

How much international experience does Joseph have? Little, accepted, but that dosn't make him the wrong selection.

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

Barritt offered nothing in attack when he scored a try vs the ABs in 2012.......not a good example. He very well nearly blow it having not sufficiently drawn the man and passing to Tuilagi too early. It was down to Tuilagi that he then received a scoring pass.

Barritt was at 13 when England crushed Scotland at Twickenham, he also successfully nullified BOD in Ireland. Tight game against an aging BOD who in his prime would have waltz around him. With respect to Scotland, we're playing the All Blacks.

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

I don't have stats but the fact is they would refect his actions as an ic not oc. Joseph as I have mentioned links excellently with the wings.

Look I know what BB is and actually in the circumstances could accept him at ic outside either Cipriani or Ford (my selection was 36 who I appreciate has been below par this term) to offer a solid pivot point in the line opposite SBW. However a backline of OF KE and BB is breathtakingly dumb.

I honestly feel for Kyle Eastmond here.

by beshocked Fri 7 Nov - 12:03

no 7 & 1/2 just sounds like you want to shift the blame onto anyone but Nowell.

If Nowell had no involvement in the first two tries then you would have a case - but you don't because he was.

The knock on gave France the field position and ball which allowed France to score.

I find it odd that you don't believe the knock on was important.

A rookie knocking on in their 1st cap for England away to a tough side in the opening of a tournament is sadly not a surprise.

I blame Lancaster for putting poor Nowell in the position that he was.

Nowell did knock on - no matter whether you want to ship the blame onto someone else.

Neither Goode or Nowell catches the ball for the 2nd try - stopping trying to blame Goode solely.

If you said that picking Goode on the bench was a mistake you might have a point but you're defending the wrong thing.

You are defending Nowell when he was at fault for two tries (not solely him but he was guilty).

Your argument is hugely flawed because you are trying to blame everything on Goode whilst not acknowledging Nowell did anything wrong.

Lancaster made quite a few errors vs France.

by Poorfour Fri 7 Nov - 12:14

kingelderfield, if we tot up everything you are saying, you are proposing throwing together a backline who have never played together, who from 11-14 have a) about 20 caps between them and b) at least three players with question marks over their defensive positioning, and with players at 12 and 15 whose early season form has been at best questionable compared to the alternatives.

And somehow, this is a recipe for success against an All Black side that is unarguably the best in the world at the moment and arguably one of the very best ever?

I would concede that you've picked a backline that, on form, has more ability to create chances than most of the other possible combinations. But that seems to me to be clutching at straws. Or perhaps grasping at shadows would be a better way to put it - because the likes of Savea, SBW, Smith and Smith would very likely exploit the lack of understanding and go through that line at will.

You said you'd picked a backline to score more tries than it would concede. I don't think that's true. I think it might score more tries than the one that Lancaster's picked. I think it would be near-certain to concede more. And I don't think the differential is enough.

by kingelderfield Fri 7 Nov - 12:15

No 7&1/2 wrote:
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

SBW and Savea are the physical issues, So yes I do. The backrow have to pile into SBW from any set piece and otherwise you're looking at your IC taking down his man.

Defense is a mentality, genuinely look at the way Cipriani now tackles compared to his S15 days. The point is backs should be selected primarily on their attacking ability. Look at the All Blacks Smith's, Cruden and BB none of them are big specimens but they attack like daggers.

by quinsforever Fri 7 Nov - 12:15

knock-ons happen all the time. they dont lead to tries they lead to scrums.

might as well blame robshaw for choosing to receive kickoff knowing he had several newbies all over the park.

by beshocked Fri 7 Nov - 12:15

no 7 & 1/2 you like to blame anyone but Nowell don't you?

I assume you think it was intelligent by Lancaster to pick Nowell then.....

My thoughts have always been the same - Lancaster had a poor day at the office as coach.

He took off key players who were performing well like Hartley and Care, consequently the England lineout fell apart. His bench options were poor and he started two inexperienced wingers (one who made two errors for France's first two tries).

What angered me most is Lancaster didn't acknowledge his own mistakes after the game. A GS was lost because of Lancaster.

Actually it was Launchbury who should have got his man, not Barritt.

You blame Goode, I blame Nowell (though I have said time and again he wasn't the only reason England lost - a contributor to the loss but not the primary reason) - both Goode and Nowell were selections made by Lancaster.....

by mystiroakey Fri 7 Nov - 12:22

100% keep him whatever. He is moving us forward and I am not surprised by the huge majority who agree.

If we do lose 3 of the games , it will be more to do with the fact that those 3 teams have been together and playing as a team for a longer period of time and understand there roles and game plan in there national sides. England are just coming together- although I still think we need to expect 2 out of 4 as a minimum.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 7 Nov - 12:33

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 you like to blame anyone but Nowell don't you?

I assume you think it was intelligent by Lancaster to pick Nowell then.....

My thoughts have always been the same - Lancaster had a poor day at the office as coach.

He took off key players who were performing well like Hartley and Care, consequently the England lineout fell apart. His bench options were poor and he started two inexperienced wingers (one who made two errors for France's first two tries).

What angered me most is Lancaster didn't acknowledge his own mistakes after the game. A GS was lost because of Lancaster.

Actually it was Launchbury who should have got his man, not Barritt.

You blame Goode, I blame Nowell (though I have said time and again he wasn't the only reason England lost - a contributor to the loss but not the primary reason) - both Goode and Nowell were selections made by Lancaster.....

I don't really blame Goode just pointing out he made 2 errors in the build up to 2 tries so why pick out Nowell every time. Why not say lancaster messed up by picking Goode on the bench? I think it's a small piece of a match as a whole.

by Geordie Fri 7 Nov - 12:33

mystiroakey wrote:100% keep him whatever. He is moving us forward and I am not surprised by the huge majority who agree.

If we do lose 3 of the games , it will be more to do with the fact that those 3 teams have been together and playing as a team for a longer period of time and understand there roles and game plan in there national sides. England are just coming together- although I still think we need to expect 2 out of 4 as a minimum.

We've been saying that for 3 years now since he took over.

The pack is good and has improved. The breakdown etc still a work in progress but its better.

The backs are worse than when he took over...

I hear the arguements over injuries etc...but ultimately we have plenty of players.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 7 Nov - 12:35

kingelderfield wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
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

SBW and Savea are the physical issues, So yes I do. The backrow have to pile into SBW from any set piece and otherwise you're looking at your IC taking down his man.

Defense is a mentality, genuinely look at the way Cipriani now tackles compared to his S15 days. The point is backs should be selected primarily on their attacking ability. Look at the All Blacks Smith's, Cruden and BB none of them are big specimens but they attack like daggers.

NZ in the backs are as strong defensively as they are offensively. I don't think you could say that with your picks.

by mystiroakey Fri 7 Nov - 12:36

GeordieFalcon wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:100% keep him whatever. He is moving us forward and I am not surprised by the huge majority who agree.

If we do lose 3 of the games , it will be more to do with the fact that those 3 teams have been together and playing as a team for a longer period of time and understand there roles and game plan in there national sides. England are just coming together- although I still think we need to expect 2 out of 4 as a minimum.

We've been saying that for 3 years now since he took over.

The pack is good and has improved. The breakdown etc still a work in progress but its better.

The backs are worse than when he took over...

I hear the arguements over injuries etc...but ultimately we have plenty of players.

maybe i didnt make it clear . I mean this tour. only- the other teams have been playing together for months- we have had an international break

by Geordie Fri 7 Nov - 12:44

Ah ok Misty.

I still think we've stalled a bit since the initial improvments.

I dont think we have improved as much as i thought we would or would have liked.

by Poorfour Fri 7 Nov - 12:52

The critical difference between the backs under Lancaster and the forwards is that he's been able to field a fairly consistent pack over the last 3 years.

The backline on the other hand has pretty much had to be recreated for every series, and mainly due to player availability rather than selectorial caprice. It's hard to have consistent performances with inconsistent personnel. Generally, when he's been able to field a consistent squad for a series, the performances have improved over time - and then it's been back to the drawing board with injuries the next time the side come together.

On the plus side, we now have a reasonably large group of backs with 10 or more caps and the run in to the RWC should give time to settle a first choice backline, and post the RWC there will be a reasonable group of players who know the system so it should be easier to assemble and reassemble.

by kingelderfield Fri 7 Nov - 12:52

Poorfour wrote:kingelderfield, if we tot up everything you are saying, you are proposing throwing together a backline who have never played together, who from 11-14 have a) about 20 caps between them and b) at least three players with question marks over their defensive positioning, and with players at 12 and 15 whose early season form has been at best questionable compared to the alternatives.

Realistically, and considering OF has been picked on reputation (I'm being exceptionally kind about that), Lancasters backline dosn't exactly scream 'cohesion', added to that it also is a first up combination. In the circumstances presented, you have to determine what is the most beneficial stratergy? Should we lose with valour giving our selves every opportunity to win or should we hence forth revert to some kind of negative anti stratergy and suffer the pain without firing a shot in return.

And somehow, this is a recipe for success against an All Black side that is unarguably the best in the world at the moment and arguably one of the very best ever?

I don't see us beating the All Blacks, we've had our 1 in 10 year victory, but seriously the english/european game is structually obverse to any 'winning'. Not until we resolve our competition structures and provide elite performance management akin to the All Blacks (radically reducing the number of games played) and employ a serious coach, will we ever set forth on a 'winning' formula.

I would concede that you've picked a backline that, on form, has more ability to create chances than most of the other possible combinations. But that seems to me to be clutching at straws. Or perhaps grasping at shadows would be a better way to put it - because the likes of Savea, SBW, Smith and Smith would very likely exploit the lack of understanding and go through that line at will.

As they will with Lancasters selection - but mine will throw somthing back!

You said you'd picked a backline to score more tries than it would concede. I don't think that's true. I think it might score more tries than the one that Lancaster's picked. I think it would be near-certain to concede more. And I don't think the differential is enough.

You cannot win unless you score tries. We will not win tomorrow however by learning to score tries we will give ourselves the chance of winning in the future.

Defense can be learnt, pace and guile are talents.

by Geordie Fri 7 Nov - 12:58

Poorfour wrote:The critical difference between the backs under Lancaster and the forwards is that he's been able to field a fairly consistent pack over the last 3 years.

The backline on the other hand has pretty much had to be recreated for every series, and mainly due to player availability rather than selectorial caprice. It's hard to have consistent performances with inconsistent personnel. Generally, when he's been able to field a consistent squad for a series, the performances have improved over time - and then it's been back to the drawing board with injuries the next time the side come together.

On the plus side, we now have a reasonably large group of backs with 10 or more caps and the run in to the RWC should give time to settle a first choice backline, and post the RWC there will be a reasonable group of players who know the system so it should be easier to assemble and reassemble.

Agree and disagree...

In general he has had

9) Care / Youngs
10) Farrell (Why hes now burned out hes never had a rest whilst Lancaster blooded ay others.)
12) Barritt / Twelvetrees
13) Manu has been injured quite a bit i accept
14) Ashton - In form for Sarries...just not used by Lancaster
15) Brown and Foden and Goode

So i dont buy tht he's been missing loads of players...in general he as had them....the whole problem is the players he chose to build the team round initially are not creative.

by beshocked Fri 7 Nov - 12:58

no 7 & 1/2 you ignore Nowell's mistakes though. You also ignore Lancaster's flaws.

That's the problem. I get the impression that you believe Nowell is a deity who does no wrong.

I pick out Nowell every time because it was a typical Lancaster error. A rookie thrown in before he was ready (surprise surprise he makes two costly errors). Putting full backs on the wing is illogical yet Lancaster loves it.

Yes you could argue picking Goode was an error (it's popular to always use Saracens players as scapegoats so why not yet again, completely ignore the faults of any other clubs' players).

Everyone likes to use Goode as a scapegoat whilst I believe Nowell gets no criticism. I think that's unfair.

by Geordie Fri 7 Nov - 13:00

But beshocked, when Farrell was in as a rookie making mistakes and was getting criticsied you were defending him to the hilt...BECAUSE he was a rookie.

by quinsforever Fri 7 Nov - 13:02

well i for one am excited to see whether nowell's operation and recovery from his long term knee problem have given him extra pace and power. lets hope so!

by kingelderfield Fri 7 Nov - 13:04

mystiroakey wrote:100% keep him whatever. He is moving us forward and I am not surprised by the huge majority who agree.

If we do lose 3 of the games , it will be more to do with the fact that those 3 teams have been together and playing as a team for a longer period of time and understand there roles and game plan in there national sides. England are just coming together- although I still think we need to expect 2 out of 4 as a minimum.

That's just too simplistic an analysis. The fact is the Lancaster stratergy does not offer a winning outcome. It is obvious to anyone that he does not understand how to deliver an attacking winning game plan. His negative nullification has suffocated whatever chance we might have had, be that tomorrow of winning the world cup.

by mystiroakey Fri 7 Nov - 13:06

21 wants him whatever the outcome
1 doesnt.

i suggest the doubters vote

by Geordie Fri 7 Nov - 13:07

quinsforever wrote:well i for one am excited to see whether nowell's operation and recovery from his long term knee problem have given him extra pace and power. lets hope so!

Hes not in the squad though.

But by all accounts he is bigger stronger and faster.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 7 Nov - 13:08

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 you ignore Nowell's mistakes though. You also ignore Lancaster's flaws.

That's the problem. I get the impression that you believe Nowell is a deity who does no wrong.

I pick out Nowell every time because it was a typical Lancaster error. A rookie thrown in before he was ready (surprise surprise he makes two costly errors). Putting full backs on the wing is illogical yet Lancaster loves it.

Yes you could argue picking Goode was an error (it's popular to always use Saracens players as scapegoats so why not yet again, completely ignore the faults of any other clubs' players).

Everyone likes to use Goode as a scapegoat whilst I believe Nowell gets no criticism. I think that's unfair.

Not at all. Nowell dropped a ball, thats a mistake but I count that mistake as no more profound than any other knock on. If for instance the French kick ended in English hands does that make Nowells mistake better or worse? For me neither. It's a mistake and that's it. I pick out Goode as you are Saracens supporter, I don't think it was his fault we lost any more than Nowells. All players make mistakes picking out a few moments in an 80 min misses a lot in my opinion. I keep making this point as you keep picking out Nowell and only Nowell, the very thing you seem to be annoyed about with people only picking out Sarries players.

by quinsforever Fri 7 Nov - 13:15

GeordieFalcon wrote:
quinsforever wrote:well i for one am excited to see whether nowell's operation and recovery from his long term knee problem have given him extra pace and power. lets hope so!

Hes not in the squad though.

But by all accounts he is bigger stronger and faster.

am getting so confused....have just been picking fantasy team out of all 12 AI sides and am feeling dizzy...

by kingelderfield Fri 7 Nov - 13:23

[quote="Poorfour"]The critical difference between the backs under Lancaster and the forwards is that he's been able to field a fairly consistent pack over the last 3 years.

The backline on the other hand has pretty much had to be recreated for every series, and mainly due to player availability rather than selectorial caprice. It's hard to have consistent performances with inconsistent personnel. Generally, when he's been able to field a consistent squad for a series, the performances have improved over time - and then it's been back to the drawing board with injuries the next time the side come together.

On the plus side, we now have a reasonably large group of backs with 10 or more caps and the run in to the RWC should give time to settle a first choice backline, and post the RWC there will be a reasonable group of players who know the system so it should be easier to assemble and reassemble.[/qu

Translated, that means you're hoping we won't have injuries and we will therefore be able to select our best players. Let's not pretend there's any kind of meaningful 'system'.

Lancaster is a poor coach regardless of who is available to him.

by kingelderfield Fri 7 Nov - 13:34

No 7&1/2 wrote:
kingelderfield wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
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

SBW and Savea are the physical issues, So yes I do. The backrow have to pile into SBW from any set piece and otherwise you're looking at your IC taking down his man.

Defense is a mentality, genuinely look at the way Cipriani now tackles compared to his S15 days. The point is backs should be selected primarily on their attacking ability. Look at the All Blacks Smith's, Cruden and BB none of them are big specimens but they attack like daggers.

NZ in the backs are as strong defensively as they are offensively. I don't think you could say that with your picks.

That's debatable, however the fact is atleast my picks know how to attack! You can't seriously compare the likes of OF or BB with Cruden, BB, SBW or Smith?

by No 7&1/2 Fri 7 Nov - 13:47

kingelderfield wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
kingelderfield wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
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

SBW and Savea are the physical issues, So yes I do. The backrow have to pile into SBW from any set piece and otherwise you're looking at your IC taking down his man.

Defense is a mentality, genuinely look at the way Cipriani now tackles compared to his S15 days. The point is backs should be selected primarily on their attacking ability. Look at the All Blacks Smith's, Cruden and BB none of them are big specimens but they attack like daggers.

NZ in the backs are as strong defensively as they are offensively. I don't think you could say that with your picks.

That's debatable, however the fact is atleast my picks know how to attack! You can't seriously compare the likes of OF or BB with Cruden, BB, SBW or Smith?

In no way are they! Farrell is a damn good player though. Excellent kicking off tee and from hand, great defense good game management, running has improved although not the be all and end all of a 10 and vastly under rated passer for me. Barritt is there to offer solidity and is himself an under rated carrier although he's not going to do fancy steps. The balance is key you don't want to go all out attack imo and get picked off easily.

by kingelderfield Fri 7 Nov - 14:07

No indeed neither of them really know how to attack.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 7 Nov - 14:09

How do you mean?

by beshocked Fri 7 Nov - 14:13

No 7&1/2 wrote:
beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 you ignore Nowell's mistakes though. You also ignore Lancaster's flaws.

That's the problem. I get the impression that you believe Nowell is a deity who does no wrong.

I pick out Nowell every time because it was a typical Lancaster error. A rookie thrown in before he was ready (surprise surprise he makes two costly errors). Putting full backs on the wing is illogical yet Lancaster loves it.

Yes you could argue picking Goode was an error (it's popular to always use Saracens players as scapegoats so why not yet again, completely ignore the faults of any other clubs' players).

Everyone likes to use Goode as a scapegoat whilst I believe Nowell gets no criticism. I think that's unfair.

Not at all. Nowell dropped a ball, thats a mistake but I count that mistake as no more profound than any other knock on. If for instance the French kick ended in English hands does that make Nowells mistake better or worse? For me neither. It's a mistake and that's it. I pick out Goode as you are Saracens supporter, I don't think it was his fault we lost any more than Nowells. All players make mistakes picking out a few moments in an 80 min misses a lot in my opinion. I keep making this point as you keep picking out Nowell and only Nowell, the very thing you seem to be annoyed about with people only picking out Sarries players.

no more profound than any other knock on? It lead to a try and instantly put England on the back foot. It put England under unnecessary pressure and gave heart to France. Some knock ons lead to tries, some don't, this one did.

Worst start possible for England.

I pick out Nowell because there's enough criticism for Goode as it is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26003469

For the 2nd try I don't care who clears up the mess - someone needed to catch the ball - Nowell or Goode.

When two of your errors lead to two tries for the opposition it's not great is it?

Geordiefalcon Farrell's debut was a winning one, not a losing one. It helps. If England had beaten France then Lancaster's gamble on Nowell would have been vindicated. England lost so of course Lancaster's decisions must come under scrutiny. Lancaster threw away a GS in the first game - that's not good coaching.

by quinsforever Fri 7 Nov - 14:19

beshocked

if murrayfield hadnt been a swampy bog we still would have won the 6N on points difference i believe.

so nowell;s mistakes only cost us the 6N in hindsight, with lots of rugby played between the France game and the end of the tournament.

players all make mistakes. it is not fair to blame a mistake in the first few minutes of the first match for losing a whole tournament. on anyone. unless they get themselves red carded for foul play. i think its right to blame hogg for scotland's humping against wales for example. a knock on is hardly the same order of magnitude of responsibility.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 7 Nov - 14:31

So you only judge a players mistakes if it leads to a try or points against his team? Fair enough, personally I would just judge the mistake. I haven't really seen many people picking up Goode as a reason for defeat but again you continue to do waht you say you don't like others doing, picking up on one player.

by beshocked Fri 7 Nov - 14:42

quinsforever it was a swampy bog though. Nothing could be done about that by England.

GS should be the aim in 6 nations - not 4 wins and a superior points difference.

Hindsight? No - the GS was gone in the first game. England threw it away - it wasn't just Nowell but he shouldn't be immune from blame.

Anything that leads to a try is important - especially one in the first minute of a match. E.g. a charge down, intercept, missed tackle, knock on, turnover, lost lineout etc.

He was not the sole reason England lost but his errors did not help.

I personally cannot forgive Lancaster for throwing way the GS and for me it will always be a black mark against his record because it was there for the taking.

no7 & 1/2 I am mentioning Nowell as a selection error vs France, I could focus on other errors by Lancaster but this is the one I chose.

Lancaster is the primary reason England lost to France not Nowell.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 7 Nov - 14:50

That's fine beshocked. We started slowly against france and made basic errors. Launchbury/lifters, Nowell, Goode, frankly the whole team.

by quinsforever Fri 7 Nov - 14:56

definitely agree that bomber got the bench completely wrong, both in terms of who was on it and when they were used. he brought our standout players off the pitch because that was the script he had written pre-game rather than looking at its potential impact. france's score at the end was a result of the botched defense resulting from no-one being in a position they usually play in.

by beshocked Fri 7 Nov - 15:03

Yes you are right - it also doesn't help when you have one rookie winger getting injured soon after kick off and the other one struggling to adapt to international rugby. The former is unlucky, the latter could have been avoided.

It also doesn't help that Lancaster has never got the best out of whoever he picks on the wing - regardless of who they are.

Basic errors can be down to rustiness and lack of communication. In this case they were down to both.

England should have come out of the blocks sooner and Lancaster should take responsibility for that.

Lancaster did not hold his hands up after the game and say he got it wrong. He should have.

by alcoombe Fri 7 Nov - 15:55

I don't know how anyone who saw Sale's game against Munster could pick Cipriani for England tomorrow. He started off quite well, but as soon as the pressure came on in the 2nd half he started making bad decisions, with some absolute disasters in the last quarter. He'd be fine against weaker sides or in less important matches, but he's got choker written all over him starting a match up like this. He'd get charged down in the first 10 and his game would crumble from there.

Healey highlighted one of the reasons why Twelvetrees has lost out to Eastmond (apart from poor form), for all his potential he just hasn't delivered on it and continues to make decisions before he has to rather than taking the ball to the line and reading the game. He's also another player that seems to get flumoxed when things aren't going well. Combined with Cipriani could be backline implosion.

by johnpartle Fri 7 Nov - 17:22

kingelderfield wrote:
beshocked wrote:kingelderfield

How much international experience does Joseph have? Little, accepted, but that dosn't make him the wrong selection.

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

Barritt offered nothing in attack when he scored a try vs the ABs in 2012.......not a good example. He very well nearly blow it having not sufficiently drawn the man and passing to Tuilagi too early. It was down to Tuilagi that he then received a scoring pass.

Barritt was at 13 when England crushed Scotland at Twickenham, he also successfully nullified BOD in Ireland. Tight game against an aging BOD who in his prime would have waltz around him. With respect to Scotland, we're playing the All Blacks.

The funny thing about Barritt is that he actually allows the ball to get to the wingers....
I don't have stats but the fact is they would refect his actions as an ic not oc. Joseph as I have mentioned links excellently with the wings.

Look I know what BB is and actually in the circumstances could accept him at ic outside either Cipriani or Ford (my selection was 36 who I appreciate has been below par this term) to offer a solid pivot point in the line opposite SBW. However a backline of OF KE and BB is breathtakingly dumb.

I honestly feel for Kyle Eastmond here.

Barritt linked very well with the outside backs at 13 in that game against Scotland, in fact the back 3 probably got more ball in that match than they have in years. Twelvetrees was primarily used for trucking the ball up on that occasion (he hasn't been as good since concentrating too much on being a 2nd FH type IC rather than a more mixed game). The stats from that match back those opinions up.

http://www.espn.co.uk/statsguru/rugby/match/133783.html

To get the best out of Eastmond at international level against a side like the ABs you need a physical and defensive anchor outside him. Barritt won't be as threatening as the injured Tuilagi or Burrell, but he will offer himself up tirelessly, allowing Eastmond to try his hand and go to Barritt if he needs him or rely on him to get the ball along the line. Also Barritt's ability to tie this backline together, marshalling the positions of inexperienced players inside and outisde him will be critical against this ruthlessly dangerous AB side.

by Sponsored content