1. Exit strategy
When Lancaster took over the England job his first mission was to ensure everyone’s basic skills were up to scratch. By and large, this has been a success but for half an hour on Saturday, as the rain closed in, one of the most crucial completely let England down: kicking from hand. It’s a simple enough lesson: if you cannot effectively clear your lines, you will lose the territorial battle and heap pressure on yourselves. New Zealand weren’t even that good in the second half, but a combination of Danny Care’s poor box kicking, Owen Farrell’s aimless punts and Kyle Eastmond’s charge down meant that the All Blacks enjoyed 69% territory after the break. England cracked under the weight of pressure, gave away penalties and conceded tries. The only thing that meant they were still in the game – just – with five minutes left was the fact that the New Zealand kickers left 12 points out there.
2. Missing ballast
You had to feel sorry for Billy Vunipola on Saturday. He was really the only man who possessed the requisite physical stature to make any sort of real headway over the gainline. The centre partnership seemed like the right one initially – Barritt’s defensive nous the perfect foil for Eastmond’s attacking threat. But they made just six metres between them, a stat that proves how much England missed a gainline breaker like Tuilagi or Burrell. It can still work, but there need to be more effective ball carriers around the rest of the park, and more specifically in the pack. Dave Attwood aside, whose ranging gallop up field skews his figure somewhat, the rest of the pack apart from Vunipola made nine (!) collective metres from 31 carries. Vunipola or Morgan, whoever starts this weekend, cannot be expected to be the sole provider of front foot ball. Against the more physical Springboks, others need to work really hard on that aspect of their game, or someone like James Haskell, who can carry as well as tackle and ruck, should be given a chance.
3. Frustrating inconsistencies
Is a level of consistency too much to ask for from our referees? As always with a point like this, it must be pointed out that they do a very difficult job and getting on their back is harsh, but the sense of frustration around Twickenham at some of the officiating on Saturday was palpable. Top of the list was Nigel Owens’ bizarre use of the TMO. Why was he not consulted for Aaron Cruden’s dubious try, which multiple replays eventually showed to have more than an air of doubt about it? What made that decision all the more baffling was the five minute stoppage in the second half to watch Dane Coles’ lashing out with his foot, which eventually resulted in a yellow card (that the TMO didn’t even recommend, ironically). The try-scoring process is the most important part of the game, so if you’re going to use the TMO for five minutes and subject the crowd to that tedious lull, it should be for that.
4. Cause for concern
A year out from the Rugby World Cup, and the selection problem that has dogged England for years now is showing no sign of being solved. The inside backs are still Lancaster’s biggest cause for concern. Owen Farrell has had very little game time so his somewhat rusty performance can be partly understood but it certainly had a knock on effect on the centres, who were, again, a new combination. There is a sense of needing to settle on partnerships with so little time to go until the World Cup, but the problem is the partnerships Lancaster wants to gel aren’t available. Is Farrell-Eastmond-Barritt a World Cup-winning midfield triumvirate? Probably not, but right now there are very few other options available. Bringing George Ford in at 10 and shifting Farrell to 12 has been mooted, but that means Eastmond, England’s most threatening attacker, misses out. Ford and Eastmond at 10 and 12 could be lethal, but is it the right call to throw them in against the uber-physical Springboks? Probably not. Dilemmas abound.
5. Still a cut above
New Zealand didn’t even play that well on Saturday, and they still won reasonably comfortably (despite what the scoreline said). They left 12 points out on the pitch from five shots at goal, two or three of which really should have been kicked. They won the game through playing intelligently and doing what they needed to do – making the most of England’s inability to get out of their own half and applying pressure until their opposition cracked. There were some standout performances from Richie McCaw and Aaron Cruden (goal-kicking aside), but other than that there was a sense that they never really got out of first gear at Twickenham. But then, when you have a side who account for more than 1,000 test match caps and have been together this long, that’s what you get – an innate knowledge of how to do just enough to win. Their total caps on Saturday amounted to under 300 – they are at a completely different stage in their development to New Zealand. Those who bemoan England’s failure to beat them consistently should remember that.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
5 things I learned:
1) SL is not up to the standard. Woeful use of the subs (AGAIN) in the second half.
2) Farrell is undropable. He was so off the pace it was unreal and yet played the full 80? (see 1)
3) We realy missed the breakdown work of Messers Corbs, Cole and Launchbury.
4) Robshaw’s decsion making is clueless at times. 3 minutes to go and he opts for 3 scrums?
5) New Zeleand continue to be held to a different standard than all other teams. Its bad enough that Owens let McCaw get away with murder, but I really take issue with TRB saying;
“They left 12 points out on the pitch from five shots at goal”
Wtf. any other fan rightly gets the “woulda, coulda, shoulda” retort thrown back in your face. But okay lets play that game:
NZ shold have docked 5 points for that first (non) try so that leaves it at +7. England missed a conversion, drop goal and one guilt edge try that a school boy would finish that’s +12. Yeah England WIN!!
Come on. If they can’t kick their goals in a test match, what are they going to be like in the World Cup.
I think NZ are on their usual World Cup decline. Sadly England do not look like closing the gap based on the above.
Find it somewhat ironic that you’ve said, “Farrell is undropable” and “If they can’t kick their goals in a test match, what are they going to be like in the World Cup.”
Surely those two opinions contradict each other? At one end you’re highlighting how important goal kicking is, particularly come WC time. On the other hand, SL should drop a proven world class goal kicker and play someone who bottled his goal kicking time and time again on a smaller stage? Which one is it?
Don’t agree at all that Robshaws decision was clueless. We had them at the scrum (which resulted in a try btw), and struggled to finish chances all first half when, as everyone seems to have forgotten, we played quite well and created a fair few chances. NZ were never going to concede two tries in three minutes, NEVER – blaming Robshaw is madness.
On the subs – I’d be interested to hear what you’d have done differently? I assume you’ll say keep Eastmond on – but to that I’d argue that we needing an extra kicker at 12 because we struggled with our exit strategy all second half. Eastmond has been charged down once, his kicking wasn’t good enough to help England get out their own half. What else should SL have done with his subs?
Is Farrell the only kicker we have? How are we to test Fords ability if we never try him? His record has been good this year. And yes we need more than just a kicker at 10. Our attack has been consistently poor with Farrell at the helm. He has played better with 12t at inside centre and I would keep him in the squad, but he dire on Saturday and should have been ssubbed IMO.
Farrell was running on empty from 50 minutes, his kicking from hand was poor, hence he was leaving it all to Care. So yes I would have taken him off not Eastmond and see whether their club partnership could prosper.
If we were NEVER going to score 2 tries, surely a quick 3 pointer and then 3 minutes to work our way back into their half. Rather than the panicky hot potato we’re in the red zone rugby? I also think the penalty try was very fortunate. With Ford on we had a bit more penetration so this would have been more sensible.
Ford has shown more times than not that he has buckled under the pressure of big kicks at post. It was only the Challenge Cup final last year that he fell apart missing big kicks. I would not trust him at this level to kick a last minute goal – I would trust Farrell all day long. Personally I’d put Farrell at 13 on Saturday with Ford/Easmond at 10/12.
My point is that at the time of the substitution we needed an additional kicker on the pitch to gain some territory – you don’t run the length of the pitch against the all blacks very often. Brown should have stepped in to help out on this – he is our second kicker in the back line. Care’s kicking was dreadful but Farrell can’t be blamed for that. At international level it is often on the 9 to kick from our own half and he didn’t deliver.
A 3 pointer and then what? Back to the half way line? NZ are clever, they’d have kicked off right back into our own 22 and we’d have spent the last two minutes trying to get out our own half. Crazy to take 3 there.
And if Farrell gets injured during the world cup, then what? Keep our fingers crossed and hope Fords ok?
Honestly not sure. Possibly Myler. Personally I think our first choice choice be Cipriani. He kicks goals brilliantly, has the ego that I’d never be worried about him bottling it and he gets the back line moving.
I really like Ford as a player, I just don’t trust him to kick his goals under pressure which is a huge issue at this level.
Ford has worked hard on his kicking over the summer and his stats are on a par with Farrell. But SL once again is exposing himself. If Ford really isn’t trusted he needs to get the likes of Slade or Daly onto the squad.
I’m not arguing his stats aren’t good – you’re completely missing my point on his cooking. He can kick – but can he kick under pressure? He has shown a few times that the answer is no to that. I would feel much more comfortable with someone kicking at international level when they’ve shown they can kick when under pressure at domestic level.
Jacob, I thought this was part of the reason Sl had kept Goode in the squad. He is a good tactical kicker, but also a fine place kicker. I was surprised when Sl dropped him and put Watson in. Effectively losing that extra kicking option off the bench.
Interesting – he certainly does have that in his locker. I really want Saracens to bring Goode into the 12 position, or even 13. The guy is a great player, vision, hands feet, BUT, he lacks the pace to be an international 15 in my opinion.
Think the article makes some valid points which are pertinent going Into the next few games.
In particular the ballast point will be even more important against SA with a severe lack of carrying ability demonstrated by the stats from Saturday. Although Robshaw and Wood are very good I think I would drop Wood for Haskell to try and redress that balance.
Inside centre, and backs in general, is becoming a real point of frustration for me. We have players on fire at club level yet persist in playing a 10 alongside them that nullifies the reason they are there in the first place. For me SL has failed tactically here, the players at 10,12 and 13 don’t seem to play in the same way and therefore none influence the game as they should. I agree with Benjit that Farrell should have gone off not Eastmond, the bottling kicks issue will never be answered if he doesn’t gain experience. This would have also put players on the pitch with the same mindset and accentuating the positive attributes they bring.
If the reason we can’t have Ford starting is kicking goals under pressure and size, then I have to say right now I would rather have Myler starting than Farrell… Much better game manager and great kicking stats. He would certainly bring our back three into the game well.
Now there is a sentence I never thought I would say
I agree with so much of the above,especially with Benjit.But I do wonder if,frankly,we are deluded and arrogant to believe England can win a world cup.The basic skill levels are simply not there-amateur rugby often displayed more and game management, and indeed team management are simply way off the mark.I’m starting to think that Lancaster is like the revamped Twickenham changing room-style over substance.
Marler says we did the exact opposite to the plan we agreed at halftime.That is criminal.These guys are very highly paid professionals who can’t even follow a plan.Why the hell did Robshaw allow that to happen?Why did he allow Care to box kick 3 times in the 10 when they were down to 14?I am shocked at Marler’s revelation.NZ play with intelligence,we play with stupidity it seems
We seem to have learn nothing from the summer tour. Our box kicking was awful i think at one point we had Robshaw and Hartley as our kick chase.
I don’t like the idea of Farrell in centre with Ford at all. In fact i don’t think Farrell should be in the 23. Around past 80mins Ford throws a pass to Barritt where sbw tackles him. I know for sure if that was Eastmond he would of step inside SBW and broke through All blacks line.
Hmmmm, a losing run of 5 games against the ABs isn’t such a big deal maybe…. of the top nations, SA have just broken a 3 year losing run, Oz are still on 3 yrs and counting, France have a 7 year losing run, Wales have a 60yr losing run, while Scotland and Ireland have never won…. yet we are consistently coming within a score of winning.
It does actually seem we are going backwards.it’s not injuries it’s the coaches.