Comments on: Stuart Lancaster: “To be the best, it is not about the flash stuff.”

By: Stu

Stu — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:08:07 +0000

Fair enough, not bad players but they all lack experience and with the injury record this year of Cole and Corbs, this is worrying. Look at the squad for AI now, with Marler and Wilson carrying knocks, there is a lack of proven ability behind. I know its not there fault but I worry about who comes in.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:26:41 +0000

Struggle to agree with this, particularly at loose-head. Alex Waller is 5th choice – not too bad at all. Corbs, Vunipola and Marler are all established internationals who can do well against any pack. Matt Mullan is also a very strong alternative.

Tight-head is a different matter. With Wilson and Cole fit, we have two top class tight heads, but outside of that we have a problem. Brookes seems the best bet, with Henry Thomas failing to look good enough at scrum time to be an international tight head. That being said, not many international sides can reel off three or four top options at TH. Brookes was very good in NZ so I’m not worried there.

By: stu

stu — Sun, 26 Oct 2014 14:15:07 +0000

My biggest concern is not the midfield, we have sufficient resources for SL to eventually settle from, but the front row options. If Dan Cole continues his injury run then we lack any quality in depth there and the same goes the other side. 2 injuries to the established order and we are dramatically reduced in quality and experience.

By: Benjit

Benjit — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:03:33 +0000

Whilst England’s unsettled backs situation is far from ideal, I think you can have “too settled” a side to the point that things become stale. The two most settled sides are Wales and NZ. Both very good sides. But are still on an upward curve or have they plateaued or are even in decline?

SL is paying for the mistakes in 2013 which was the last great opportunity to experiment. Instead he bet the farm on the core of his backs being Farrell, Barritt, Manu, Ashton, Brown and Goode, based on THAT match vs NZ. However the matches against France, Italy and Wales ( following similar abject attacking performances against Australia and South Africa the previous autumn) shattered that belief. We then had the summer disrupted by the Lions and then wasted the autumn with the failed Tomkins experiment.

I still say it’s not too late though.

By: Benjit

Benjit — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 10:28:36 +0000

I think that is a bit unfair re 12t. He was lumbered with Tomkins last AIs, but was part of the most attacking team in this year’s 6n. He was not fit for the 2nd NZ test, and I blame SL for rushing back his “regulars” rather than sticking with those who had done so well in the 1st test.

I fear SL is going to make the same mistake with Farrell for the 1st AI. He looked a little undercooked vs Munster.

By: Henry

Henry — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 09:34:09 +0000

Oh no doubt we are guilty of that (myself included)- just like we also have painfully short memories- the cries last year of ‘get Barritt out, he’s so dull, no creativity’, then this year ‘you know Barritt wasn’t that bad, wouldn’t mind seeing him in the team again, we played some good rugby with him’.
However I think it is more a lack of patience than anything- we aren’t calling for change in the pack- we are only getting frustrated with our midfield as it has yet to really perform- players are coming in having 6 games and being ‘ok’. Yes we wanted 12T in the team, but he has been nothing but average, occasionally frustratingly poor (2nd NZ test). I think it is fine to expect more than that from the English back line. If that means we have to look to the new (and in Slade’s case, form) midfielders in the premiership, so be it.
It is worth noting that the last two under 20s teams have won the world cup, so theoretically the players coming through should be bloody good and worth a look!

By: Simon Scantlebury

Simon Scantlebury — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:08:32 +0000

Given all the debate here just about 10/11/12 we are far from a settled team just a year out from rwc.Kirwan’s comment NZ being 5 years ahead in terms of a settled team seems about right.Is 2015 a stepping stone to 2019??

By: R120

R120 — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:43:45 +0000

What concerns me is why do we all watch rugby, what are the most watched clips on you tube, what is the greatest try of all time from the Baba’s – the flash stuff.

I don’t want to watch great defenses, I want to watch flair players.

Of course winning is everything for the professional game, otherwise what’s the point, but if it means union going the way of league (especially in the ARL) and becoming a defence heavy game ( no disrespect to League as I am a big fan) then perhaps it won’t be the game I love to watch.

It should always be about having a go, not containing the opposition.

By: Mr H

Mr H — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:09:22 +0000

Another Daly fan here . . . and a bit of a heretic! I would love to see Daly at fullback again. I think he would give us an extra dimension in attack, and would give us an alternative kicker to Ford if Lancaster took a more creative option at 10. Yeah, I know Brown had a cracking season, but making a successful team is all about using the players you have in the best possible way.

PS I would also be happy to see Barritt at inside centre if Ford was no.10 – does that make me a double heretic?

By: banastre

banastre — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:21:27 +0000

I think some people on this blog can be accused of wanting the ‘next big thing’ in this case Slade to be given a starting rollover other perfectly sound options. In the centres first it was 12t who we were all dying to see have a go, then it was the eastmond and now it’s slade.

As the country with the largest playing base I think we suffer from a scattergun policy of capping lots of players of similar ability, which means we have lots of players with 10-30caps, not enough for the magic 600 number of whatever it is to win the world cup. No way would North, cuthbert or Jonathan Davies have been the caps and the time they had of they were English. We need to stick to what we have and consolidate. If Lancaster thinks he can make 12t our will greenwood then il trust him.

By: Henry

Henry — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:44:35 +0000

(Not the same Henry who started this thread)
I am in two minds about the 12/13 playmaker- as you rightly say Jacob often they swap around so there isn’t as much of a difference as many people think what number is on their back, however really interesting article from Greenwood today (in the telegraph on why Toulon won’t win the champions cup)- talks a lot about why Wilkinson valued Catt as the 2nd playmaker so much at 12. I think there is a psychological component of having another playmaker standing next to you taking pressure and decision making off the shoulders of the 10, and there is enough of a difference between the two to add some value to playing a playmaker/bosher in one or the other. It would certainly give our backline a much better balance of attack and for me the most promising guy is Slade to fill that role. Has everything that 12T does bar the size, but seems a much ‘smarter’ footballer. 12T habit of trying a kick through when we have a brilliant attacking opportunity frustrates me beyond belief. However in the mean time would go for Eastmond on current squad and form.
Though being a member of the Daly fanclub personally I would go bosher at 12 (Manu) and playmaker at 13 (Daly) just to get him in the team. But thats just me. I do buy into what Lancaster and co are trying to go for!

By: Jacob

Jacob — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:00:36 +0000

To be honest I don’t think it makes any difference. Traditionally, Australia have worked the same way we have with a ball playing 12. Ireland and NZ tend to work the other way round, as do Wales.

Really though, it makes no difference. Tuilagi, whilst wearing the 13 shirt, often went through the 12 channel off of first phase ball to open space outwide. Really, it’s a trivial argument.

The important this is to have a centre that is more creative and a centre that can get you over the gainline.