Comments on: Tindall: England need a ball player at 12 – ideally Eastmond

By: Don P

Don P — Fri, 29 May 2015 16:48:03 +0000

You know Slade better than me. I’ve limited exp of seeing him play, although I’ve seen others echo yr opinion, so bow to yr knowledge. Hope for England’s sake that he’s as good as you say.

As you seem to fear however, will Lancs give him a look in for the WC? Hope so, but also have my doubts.

I opted for Eastmond as I’ve seen how he can play in a Bath back line. He seems to play without fear & is more likely to scare the opposition than another ‘basher’ IMO.

Maybe both Slade & Eastmond will get in, but methinks it’s too radical a step for Lancaster. @ heart I see him as conservative & his ‘youth’ policy as something of a smokescreen; ‘outing’ the ‘old’ for the ‘new’ seemingly regardless of their abilities.

Agree that it’s no good having players sitting on the bench. Ask Cipriani about that.

By: Guffers

Guffers — Fri, 29 May 2015 10:56:05 +0000

It seems daft talking about all these inside centre options who have one thing but not the other when there has been an option who literally has it all available and in form. Henry Slade has it all – good defender, great footwork, brilliant distribution, real pace, stands flat with superb vision and he’s a left-footer so compliments Ford at 10. I was a huge fan of Lancaster but he really has dithered with regards inside-centre and I fear Slade will be parked for the RWC2019 campaign which is ridiculous.

By: Don P

Don P — Thu, 28 May 2015 16:42:07 +0000

Well, I never particularly rated Tindall due to his lack of creativity as alluded to by Tregs, but as was also pointed out, he usually had Greenwood outside to compensate for him.

That’s an issue for England as I see it. England never really replaced Greenwood (better than Guscott IMO who ran across too much & concertinaed his wingers), who had guile as well as the ability to carry the ball into contact.

However, Lancaster has an issue in midfield as 12trees doesn’t really cut @ In’tal level. Too hare brained @ times & has butchered tries. Burrell, is in the ‘big’ mould that seems to suit the English psyche, but he doesn’t penetrate the best defences. Barritt is the defender in the Conrad Smith vein, but he can’t breach top ‘D’s’ either. Don’t get me wrong, triers all, but is that enough?

So the ? is, ‘will Lancaster pick Eastmond of the fancy feet from a try scoring Bath back line as Tindall recommends’? Unlikely, but he could have done worse than watched Bath cut Leicester to ribbons last week & then consider using their backs in concert for England as well. He’ll probably look @ Eastmond’s lack of size & be afraid of his defence being compromised by his lack of stature.

However, as I have previously mentioned, he needs to make Eastmond a BETTER DEFENDER by helping him practise his tackling technique & positioning – over & over till he gets it right. That’s partly what coaching’s about isn’t it? Look at what the guy can do, not what he can’t do & make make him a better, rounded player.

Thinking of Jason Robinson for a moment (I know he was a winger/fb), but he was no giant was he? Would any now suggest that he ought not to have played for England… esp in Sydney, 2003?

As Tinders states; ‘England need a ball player at 12 – ideally Eastmond’. Yep.

PS Be my guest & pick the ‘nuanced nonsense’ (you don’t 1/2 like your alliteration do you?) out of that then Blub.

By: Don P

Don P — Thu, 28 May 2015 15:57:38 +0000

Yeah, kinda makes you wonder why England picked Tindall for, what, 10 yrs or so?

By: Blub

Blub — Thu, 28 May 2015 11:45:48 +0000

But in fairness he played outside ball playing inside centres in Catt and Greenwood. Even Wilkinson/Flood/Barkley at times.

By: grundy

grundy — Wed, 27 May 2015 18:48:45 +0000

nah lets be fair to tinds, he was a spanner from time to time but he could defend and organise a defence

By: Tregs

Tregs — Wed, 27 May 2015 18:40:17 +0000

Tindall played in an England squad that had a forward pack that dominated the World and arguably the best kicker the world has ever seen, for a large part of his career. All that was ever really expected of him was to crash the ball up and defend. England are now playing in a time where more points are scored more than ever, and you need a backline that will get you tries, that is the difference. Also it seems a bit pointless playing a fly half like Ford at 10 and then putting a much less creative player at 12. If you’re gonna play Barritt you may as well play Farrell at 10 instead of Ford. Finally, its not really rich of him as he never selected himself or publicly said that he should have been picked, Woodward and Brian Ashton picked him.

By: Teecee

Teecee — Wed, 27 May 2015 18:01:49 +0000

Not sure how Nowell and yarde can be classed as big physical ball carriers or Strettle for that matter.I agree that Banahan should be in the 50 as he is exactly that and he plays for Bath so no major adjustment would be needed by Eastmond or JJ.

Surely Burgess just has not got the experience to be chosen for this W Cup? He’ll only be 30 in 2019 and by then should have nailed down a position!

By: Leon

Leon — Wed, 27 May 2015 15:42:01 +0000

Love it just spat out half a mouthful of tea on my desk

By: Guffers

Guffers — Wed, 27 May 2015 15:10:10 +0000

Bit rich of Tindall to say that Brad Barritt shouldn’t be picked and instead a ‘ball player’ should play in the centres. Tindall is the only centre to have achieved 70+ caps with no discernible passing ability, no pace, no kicking game and tits for hands.

By: Tonytaff

Tonytaff — Wed, 27 May 2015 11:59:11 +0000

That Tindall didn’t know where Strettle was going to run says nowt about Stretts; it simply reminds how stupid Tinds was, and is.