Comments on: Hartley on England: No more excuses. We must start winning big games.

By: Don P

Don P — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:46:30 +0000

Geat

True.

By: Geat

Geat — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 16:37:59 +0000

England 2000-2003 was the only NH side in over a century of test rugby to put together a consistent run of wins against the big 3. Surely it would be arrogant, or deluded, so expect this side that’s 3 years out of the doldrums to manage a comparable feat?

Regarding the world cup, look at the omnishshambles of an England side that reached the final in 07. And France managed it in 2011 despite losing to Tonga! You don’t necessarily have to be the best side in the world to win the trophy.

By: Don P

Don P — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 16:36:55 +0000

Mike

As an afterthought & regds Jamie’s original contention; ‘In the past few seasons, they (England) have made HUGE strides in the right direction – but they are not the finished product yet’, I take task with the 1st part of his statement, as it is largely unsubstantiated, too wooly, a claim, but do agree with the 2nd part. SL’s record attests to the latter. However, his job is to sell his headlines, which, judging by this debate still lingering on & on, he has suceeded in, but following a 4 zip loss record to NZ, the the ‘HUGH’ word is surely somewhat subjective & therefore inapprop. That’s the sort of stuff that gives tends to Hos(i)e me off. Oops. Given the game away now. Expect more of the same? Oh, no.

By: Don P

Don P — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 16:18:32 +0000

Mike
Last 2 standing. Most here disagree with me. They/you see this improvement issue as more significant for England than me. I look @ Lanc’s record & e.g. last 4 results v NZ as more the bottom line. It’s degrees I expect, albeit by some.Getting ‘closer to’, say NZ, or ‘scoring more tries’ is of less real signicance to me. In the end it’s abt winning enough games. This ‘pinch of salt’ stuff regds IRB (WR) rankings or not playing the SH enough is really excuse making (which we all can/do), but for England to make a real impact they must beat the SH reg & away from home. Needs rad o/haul in thinking. Another pt; England’s wingers don’t score (many) tries. Savea has 27 in 27. Surely England must signif address this issue by sorting their midfield’s (who are they?) skills & running lines… for the wings. I clearly come across as anti English, but I see it as pro truth. England have improved a bit (according to above stats by 5% on SL’s predecessors). Will this win a WC tho, which has to be the objective. Know more Nov’s end I guess. Regds for perseverance.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:04:49 +0000

Don P

I think we will have to disagree on this one. Either you are not understanding my point, or you disagree with it.

I agree that ultimately, and hopefully by the WC, the aim is for England to be beating the top teams (i.e. NZ and RSA). I accept that when you start from a low position you have to make improvements before you can beat the best teams. You cannot within a year turn a team heading for 5th into a top 2 in the world team. We are getting closer to RSA and NZ, but have not YET reached their level. As we are improving I am happy with th ejob Lancaster is doing. If we were in 3rd and not improving then I would want England to look for a new coach.

From your comments on England and Lancaster it sounds like you think England have made no improvement in the last 2 years… Do you think England have made any improvement?

By: Don P

Don P — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:56:48 +0000

Geat

Thnks for the tip on chloesterol.. try blood pressure then. And re-read my comments to Matt/Mike regds E’s posi. I have opinions (like you), but I draw diff conclusions & at least I attempt to make mine predicated by reffing sources other than my just my own views.

By: Don P

Don P — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:48:07 +0000

Matt
‘you now seem to think they don’t count because they don’t support your point of view …….. who in your view is the 3rd best side’? It’s marginal & recent, but If you’re happy with that, then gd on you. E’re c1/2 a pt above Oz. I presume their posi of 3rd is since the last game of the RC? Unless I’m mistaken (the IRB site doesn’t elab & I haven’t the time to trace further now), this change only occured because Oz lost to Arg? And the narrow losses you mention are… er, losses & so irrelevent (unless teams get pts for losing?)? That, for me, is the acid test, but not for you.. & that’s it. Let’s see how things stand after Nov.

By: Don P

Don P — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:32:17 +0000

Mike – Ctd last
Actually unsure in retro whose ‘style’ you ref to. SL’s or likely those prior to his tenure? Either way, E need to id their midfield & up their skills pronto & ult ‘dummy’ runners (as per Gr’wood’s analysis as aforementioned & which, on this issue, he did make sense to me). With guys like Wade likely to start in Nov(?), they’ll need more room to move. Lancs, surely has to aspire to getting his wing men to score a try a game!? Anyway, I’ve said all this before, so nothing new. As for SL’s record, it’s 5% better (accoridng to yr stats), so far than say the much maligned or scapegoated MJ’s. Also he’s been there for a lesser time than his predecessors you mention(?), so rel early days yet. I’m not here to convince you (or anyone) of anything. You seem to see SL’s record as substantial & yet he’s won nothing. I see it diff – until he starts beating the SH on a reg basis. But the E have always had a diff mind set in rugger for me.

By: Geat

Geat — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 18:28:45 +0000

I find it amusing that pundits talk bollocks if he doesn’t agree with them (Greenwood, Dallaglio), but should be listened to if he does (SCW, Barnes). Convenient.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 17:42:13 +0000

Don, England have improved since Lancaster took over. Just admit it, you know it’s true. You can’t find any evidence that we haven’t.

We aren’t up with the top 2 in the world yet, but you can’t got from fifth to first without being fourth and third etc.

After banging on about rankings (where we’ve gained points over the last couple of years, enough to now move to 3rd) you now seem to think they don’t count because they don’t support your point of view …….. who in your view is the 3rd best side?

By: Don P

Don P — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 17:35:11 +0000

Mike Ctd 11… blog in library, so get cut off due ltd time.
Don’t think England can go to central contracts now? Maybe, but too many bodies with conflicts of interest; e.g. not in clubs (whom seem to have ‘sidelined’ the RFU & they really ‘run’ the game or have the power here? Like the FA in f’ball?) interest to have ‘employees’ crocked when playing for E. Diff in SH of course. Also E must play the SH away on reg basis to improve IMO. Need to find a way. The ‘style’ you mention is diff, esp when I doubt if anyone here even knows E’s best midfield combo yet? I guess people here think I’m banging the SH/NZ drum, but E’s wingers were forced in field only last yr (at home partic) as their m’field couldn’t straighten thier running lines. If SL just looked @ the ITM (I mention this as I naturally view it @ times) he’d see that even the tight fwds run & pass like backs these days.

By: Don P

Don P — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 16:55:29 +0000

Mike

Ctd… I was reffing to Gr’wood of course. He was on TV a couple of days back talking up the E coaching team when their record under SL is anything but the ‘best in the world’. That’s how he comes into it… for me. It’s this, IMO, bs,smug attitude that turns me off E. Likewise Dallaglio’s comment about England’s win v NZ as being pivotal at the time, when it was, as I think you’ll agree, anything but afterwards. I don’t know when NZ last lost @ home without looking it up, but I know it was a while & I’ll take yr word in was in 09 (to SA I think).