HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
George Ford
He should have been starting from the start of the series, having been one of the form fly-halves in England this season and with his main competitor horribly out of practice. He proved as much when he finally came into the starting jersey, igniting England’s backline for the first time in what were dire conditions against Samoa, and putting England in the right areas of the pitch against Australia, where the pack could dominate. Concerns about his defence have surely been allayed, as there has barely been a mention of it this series. Time to give him a proper run of games.
Kieron Brookes
The young prop didn’t get a start this autumn (which was a shame – had England not performed so badly in their opening two games, you sense he might have got a shot against Samoa), but in every single cameo from the bench he seemed bursting with energy. Starting and playing 65 minutes is a different matter of course, but for now this man is a genuine impact sub – not something you generally associate with a tighthead prop. His scrummaging looks excellent and his sheer energy in the loose has been a joy to behold. If Dan Cole remains fit, Brookes might face a struggle to remain in the matchday squad, but I’d argue he’s actually a better option to bring off the bench with 15 minutes left than Cole or Wilson anyway.
Dave Attwood
Attwood’s autumn may come to be remembered for that horrific butchered two on one against South Africa and yes, he does deserve some flak for that. However, the majority of his campaign has been of the highest quality. England’s rolling maul has been a thing of beauty (if that’s what gets you going, I suppose) and if you take a closer look at it, it is more often than not Attwood who is at the centre of it, chiding the rest of the pack on and lending his considerable bulk to the cause. Add to that some stellar lineout work and a few eye-catching gallops around the pitch, and I think we can forgive the aforementioned butchery.
Ben Morgan
Much like Ford, the team looked a lot better in the second half of the series, when Morgan was starting rather than cameo-ing. Of course the opposition wasn’t of the same quality, but Morgan deserved his start anyway and took his chance. Two tries against Australia stole the headlines, but it was his general appetite for work that impressed more than anything else. Behind a scrum that always went forwards, his control at the back of the scrum was superb too.
Jonny May
For too long have England’s wingers failed to score tries, so May’s three this autumn – including that belter against New Zealand – were a breath of fresh air. You have to remember, too, that England did not get their wings into the game that often – whether by design (against Australia) or because of the ineptitudes of those inside them (against New Zealand and South Africa). He is a genuine ‘something from nothing’ player, with pace that is almost unrivalled worldwide, and he now has one World Cup wing spot sewn up, you suspect.
WORK TO DO
Danny Care
Lots of average box-kicking and an inability to stamp his authority on the game with his usual sniping and half-breaks led to Care being dropped from the squad altogether for the final two tests. I’m not convinced it was handled correctly, to be honest – he was so bad against New Zealand he should have been dropped for the South Africa game, and then possibly given a shot at redemption against Samoa or Australia. As it is, he’s likely lost his spot as first choice scrum-half for the Six Nations.
Brad Barritt
Brad Barritt is immensely good at what he does. The problem is, what he does is not good enough for international rugby. I understand that he’s a superb defender and organiser, but beyond that there is little to speak of. He may only be keeping the shirt warm for Tuilagi but even so, is he the second best 13 in the country? His lack of pace was shown up against Australia and I almost felt sorry for him in the first two games, as England tried to crowbar him into the Tuilagi/Burrell role, when he simply doesn’t have the physical capabilities to do so.
Owen Farrell
Why did he start the first two games? That he wasn’t match fit became painfully obvious in that New Zealand game and, like Care, to start him against South Africa (who, ironically, changed both their half-backs after poor performances the week previously) was a decision that backfired. He had obviously been playing well in training, but the intensity there is so far from a test match that it shouldn’t have mattered. He was marginally better at 12 against Samoa, but didn’t do anything unduly excellent to suggest that he was the long term answer there. He needs lots of game time between now and the Six Nations, but with Charlie Hodgson so good for Sarries so far this season, will he get it?
Mike Brown
It always feels a bit harsh writing negatively about Mike Brown because he is rarely anything less than solid. The issue is, he will always be compared nowadays to how good he was at this time last year, and in the 2014 Six Nations, when he was probably the form fullback in the world. Whether teams have worked him out, I don’t know, but he seems to have lost that ability to always beat the first man. When you add to that the fact that he is not really a secondary playmaker in the way that someone like Alex Goode is, is it time to look at someone else in the 15 shirt?
Billy Vunipola
Vunipola is another one who deserves some sympathy, as he was essentially tasked with carrying an entire pack’s worth of ball over the gainline, such was the inability of his colleagues to go forwards in the first two games. And again he suffered by featuring against two of the best, and most physical, defensive units in world rugby, but nevertheless we expected more. He was nowhere near as dynamic as Morgan was, when he took over, and didn’t seem to be smashing his way through tackles and continuing to pump the legs as he has done in the past. He will come again and no doubt be a mainstay of the England side in future, but the past month wasn’t a good one for big Billy.
Who were you impressed/disappointed with over the past month?
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
I think that’s possibly harsh on Barritt. Yes, he’s not what we’re looking for going forward, but I believe we would have lost the Australia test if it wasn’t for him.
I also think it’s harsh on Barritt, he had a really good game against Australia, including dare I say it with the ball. Although I’m not sure I’d go as far as Jeremy Guscott, he picked him at 13 for his team of the Autumn internationals.
Agreed. We would have lost that game without him. A lot of the work he does is under-appreciated by pundits and commentators, and I think he belongs in the squad. The problem is that as a starter he needs someone with the attacking drive of Tuilagi to compensate for his relative lack of pace.
Billy Vunipola looks a shadow of his former self unfortunately. Heard Sean Fitzpatrick rip into his attitude at a dinner the other week and I am beginning see what he means.
Ford should have started the AI’s and should start the 6Nations, barring a complete loss of form or injury. This comes with the caveat that the management pick a 12 & 13 best suited to benefit from Ford’s abilities – something I have little confidence in Lancaster to do unfortunately.
Ben Youngs looked back to being somewhere near his best too which was pleasing to see
I could not agree with you less about Brad Barritt. Which series have you been watching?
Jeremy Guscott chose him at no.13 in his Autumn XV, and rightfully so if you look at his work rate and tackle count. Not to mention his leadership skills and reading of the game. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/30269070
He may be one dimensional, but he is one of the reasons why the AB’s and Boks beat us by 3 points and not by 23 points. Defence is essential coming into a world cup, and he is currently the best defensive back in world rugby.
Other opinions available…
Lancaster is damned either way. His first choice centres injured (Burrell and Tuilagi), his initial first choice 10 coming back from injury (Farrell), Care playing behind a pack who struggled to get go forward in the second because of the rain. It’s difficult to pick a group and stick with it in these circumstances.
I thought Brown was back in-form. I thought Barritt did a good job. But overall I think Jamie is about right.
You win World Cups with 30 players (sometimes more – NZ pulling in that fella from his fishing boat). It would be lovely to have established combinations, but it rarely happens unless players stay fit.
On that, I wonder what Wales record is like with and without Jamie Roberts at centre.
Calling Care’s box-kicking “average” is unbelievably generous. Youngs form in the final two games is a big plus for me – I don’t think his passing is as bad as people suggest and the rest of his game is brilliant. Snipes at the right time, good decision maker and box-kicking is brilliant.
Brown was quiet – but I wouldn’t drop him. Mainly because there are no other outstanding options. For me Nowell is the long term man to fill the 15 shirt, and I really want to see him given a run there for Exeter. Post-2015 I would probably look to getting him in there. Foden hasn’t really been great this year (although I am a big fan of his) and Goode for me lacks the pace to be an international 15.
Thought Attwood was very good but he’d still be straight back on the bench for me is Launchbury was fit. Lawes to partner him.
Big plus point for me is that other than centre (well really the 12 shirt) everything is looking settled.
Back 3 is probably decided with options like Yarde and Roko able to step in seamlessly for form or injury reasons.
At 10 Ford and Farrell offer two very different, and very good options. I have no doubt Farrell will come good. Same at 9 between Youngs and Care.
Tuilagi obviously walks into the 13 shirt, and Burrell/Barritt are average but adequate options.
It is only 12 that we still seem confused about. Twelvetrees, Eastmond or Farrell are the realistic options. I’d quite like to see Farrell there if he finds form – mainly because whilst I like Ford, I don’t completely trust his goal kicking. I also think that combination can work for what we are trying to achieve.
Agree that we’re looking settled, and also that we have depth. The final test of the autumn last year, we had Foden and Ashton on the wings (Brown had also played there during 2013). This year we have May, Watson, Nowell, Roko and Yarde all putting their hands up. Similarly, there was panic with Cole out and Wilson struggling for fitness during the Six Nations – now we have Cole coming back, Wilson in good form, Brookes as a major plus, and Thomas going well at Bath. Then there’s lock where we lost Parling, Launchbury and (potential) Slater, but gained experience for Attwood and Kruis.
So, for me the big plus-point in an otherwise far-from-perfect 2014 was definitely finding depth.
Brown’s biggest issue is that he is not a creator – it doesn’t matter if he beats the first man, or the second, if he doesn’t pass to the man following him up but just goes to ground.
Yes he is a good player, and can be exceptional on his day, but the back 3 do not, and never have worked as an effective unit with him at full back.
Remember when Ashton was at his best for club and country? Half the reason was foden playing him into space.
Ford was good, and we need him to stay good to keep competition for the 10 shirt alive but he is still to light for the game. At one point two Aussies picked him up and carried back 20 years, and he has to shoulder some of the blame for the way in which the Aussies ran through the England 9-11 axis at will.
Which being me to Twelvetrees. Lovely guy, great smile and potentially a great centre. But he needs to be dropped until he shows consistency.
And Youngs – his high ratings on this and other websites can only be, to me, a reaction to how bad Care was. His box kicking may have been good but his distribution was glacial, his passing was inconsistent and his scrum and maul managment was shocking (watch how Wiggy controls the maul at 75 minutes that led to the third try, and then compare to how Youngs did it earlier – its a testament to how good a game Morgan had those early mauls worked at all).
The worst bit was his defence, he was culpable for several major defensive errors.
I think people really over egg Barritt’s defensive contribution. As if Burrell or Joseph would have missed so many tackles that SA would have thrashed us and Australia would have beaten us too.
There is an old adage: “the best defence is a good offence”. We may have leaked more points without Barritt (although that’s not a given), but we may have scored more points, the opposition may have been more risk adverse in their attack mindful of the counter or the intercept.
Look at England’s record with Barritt in the team. It is highly average. Successive runners up in 6n, and a poor second at that in 2013. A stagnant attack. The exception which people will bring up is NZ 2012, but Tuilagi was the architect that day, even saving Barritt’s blushes when he did his best to butcher the try he eventually scored.
Until SL can find a centre at 12 or 13, who can provide a good offence and a good defence, he will keep picking Barritt. Eastmond is probably the best option at 12 at the moment. He kept Sonny Bill quiet, and is a good defender, but needs an attacking 10 to get the best offence working. 13 is the problem area. We don’t have a Conrad Smith in our ranks, or I’m sure he’d be in there already.
Barritt: Without Tuilagi, and without another centre who could defend like Barritt does, SL didn’t really have much option. An attacking 13 like Burrell or Jospeh might have given us more go forward bal, but it could have been a shocker going backwards without the ball!
Vunipola: I think it’s a little harsh on him. In the first two games he was the only ball carrying forward. He was never going to get parity on his own against the best two packs in the world. Morgan did look impressive against Samoa and Aus, but I’m pretty sure Billy would have as well, but Lancaster saw fit to drop him from the squad entirely? I think this may be due more to something other than his playing ability.
Brown: I think Brown has been found out a little recently, and I also wish he would pass the ball more. I think Watson at 15 could be worth looking at, with Yarde, Roko or Nowell at 14? I think Watson would be better running from deep.
No 12T?: I can’t understand why Barritt gets a down arrow, but 12T doesn’t He was tasked with being the second playmaker, and he did nothing!! He didn’t help going forward, and he didn’t do much in defence either, apart from watch people run past him at close range.
Positions where we need more depth: 6, 9, 12 & 13. Wood is a good player, there’s no doubt about it, but his lack of ball carrying when England really needed it did not help the team. Haskell is a good option on the bench as he can cover 6 to 8, but outside of him? Ewers should be brought into the squad and given time to gel before the World Cup.
Care was not in form coming into the AI’s but still got picked. Youngs’ form got better, but his passing was still poor. We need at least one more 9 to give these two a kick up the ass. Wiggy is a good player, and should have been given more game time this Autumn, unless SL doesn’t want him around the squad for the World Cup?
Eastmond, Farrell, 12T? Are any of these the answer? Eastmond and Farrell certainly played better than 12T, who showed nothing in defence or attack. I think both Eastmond or Farrell could be an option outside Ford. But also someone like Slade as a second playmaker could work. Either way SL needs to get players involved earlier to prepare for the World Cup. Of course Burgess would be a great option once he’s up to speed on positioning etc!
Barritt is not the answer. He played well and did the job he was tasked with. But he will not help the team score tries against the best teams in the world. His partnership with Tuilagi took the NZ defence apart, but since then…….? At 12 he’s a much better player, but at 13 he is just a defender. There are lots of options for the 13 shirt, but SL needs to get them in the squad. Aside from the obvious two, we have Joseph, Daly, Hill, Burgess?
Dazza in the Bath matches I watched there doesn’t seem much wrong with Joseph’s defence. People will no doubt point to the Glasgow match, but Bath were killed at the breakdown there, as they had no back row resources.
It’s amazing how players can do lots of great things in attack and get slated for the odd (or even perceived) defensive mistake, yet when it’s the opposite people look past it. Barritt kills a lot of try scoring opportunities and that deserves as much scrutiny as the missed tackles of more attacking players.
I think it’s Joseph’s positioning that often lets him down. Similar to Wade on the wing. Just not sure of where his team mates are around him, and when to go out, push in etc.
On your second point would Ashton be in that category? Great attacking winger with a fantastic ability to track the ball, but his tackling is poor.
It would seem that in Roko and Watson ( May has got better as well) SL has two wingers who can tackle effectively and nullify their opposite number.
I would love to see Burgess play 13 outside Eastmond for Bath. I think Burgess could be the answer.
“On your second point would Ashton be in that category?”
Up until he stopped scoring hat fulls of tries, yes. After that, not so much.
He still scores plenty of tries at club level. Top try scorer in the Heineken Cup last season.
Dazza, Haskell and Croft give us good depth at 6. 7 might be the problem, although Kvesic is in fine form for Glos at the moment.
I would love to see Croft back in the team, as he is possibly the best ball carrying forward England have had for years. I just can’t see SL picking Croft if Wood is fit. Even if he was in much better form than Wood, he has so much “credit in the bank” that he now appears to be one of what I like to call “The Undroppables”
I too think this is a little harsh on Barritt. England’s three quarters were only there to defend and chase kicks and he does one of those very well. But his inclusion in Guscott’s team of the autumn was, along with a lot of what he says, laughable.
If everyone was fit, Tuilagi and Barritt in the centres wouldn’t be a bad combination. Aside from the former, England don’t have backs who worry the opposition and England have never managed an expansive game, so picking the guy who’ll stop the opposition from scoring isn’t a bad bet.
I agree with Dazza. We do not seem to be able to tell the difference between a 12 and a 13, and imho they are huge. Barritt is a 12 not a 13, and Eastmond should be at 13. To be fair we don’t seem to have a stand out 13 and tend to make do with a bulldozer because they are ‘Centres’. No surprises that the Wingers don’t get the ball, because the guys inside them are looking to ‘smash it up’. My current best example in this area is Conrad Smith, who I thought had an utterly outstanding (and unsung) game against England. Always busy, always looking to release players but able to put in a bosh if required. Farrell, never a 12 at senior International level end of.
Morgan is a better 8 than BV simply because he understands the game better. Personally I think he could do with losing a few pounds, but how that may affect his game may be an issue.
One final point, I thought the Aussies showed how a Rucking game should be done, fast and furious, hitting runners at pace. Not that useless front up, squeeze ball rubbish giving the defence time to get sorted (and become numerically superior). Mix that with an energy sapping Mauling game, and you have a devastating pack. Use the Maul to suck in the defence, use the Ruck to attack disorganised defenders and get the Backs to play what’s in front of them. We may then have a chance of winning the RWC.
I’d also like to point out that there’s a snowballs chance in hell of these tactics being employed because it’s far too free form.
It’s not that they “can’t tell the difference”. England, along with sides like Bath, choose to have their play-maker at 12 and the larger, gain-line buster centre (in theory) at 13. There’s no hard-and-fast rule about which player plays in which position.
Would you put Joseph in the “larger, gain-line buster” role? Yes he’s probably larger than Eastmond but who isn’t in most back lines. He does bust the gain line, but not in the same way as Tuilagi or Burrell.
That’s right, he’s pretty small for a 13 playing in that way, but we get away with it at club level. I expect it’s that exact thing that’s been against him in terms of England.
Could you see Burgess playing 13 outside Eastmond? Or do you think Burgess should be at 12? He has good hands for a big guy, but not the same skill set that Eastmond has.
Absolutely, 13 is where I personally would like to see him. On Friday he was in between Eastmond (who seemed to have moved to 10) and Joseph, as they were both telling him where to stand and what to do.
Personally I think we’ll see Eastmond shift to 13 in the Conrad Smith mold. He hasn’t quite got the kicking game to be a top level 12 I don’t think. But, he has great feet, is actually a very good defender and could play in a very similar way to Smith. Ford at 10 and Burgess at 12. That’s pretty frightening.
The reason I think Burgess won’t be at 13 is that it is a much tougher channel to defend from a positional stand point. Defending from 12 is much easier. It also brings him closer to play which means he can get his hands on the ball more.
I’ve always thought Eastmond would make a good fullback. For me a back line of:
10. Ford
11. Watson
12. Burgess
13. Joseph
14. Rokoduguni
15. Eastmond
Sounds awesome.
Wouldn’t be convinced by Easmond under the high ball. Can you imagine him going up against Folau?
Surely even if he was brilliant under the high ball he would lack the height to challenge there?
Don’t make me say Jason Robinson… ;-)
Jason Robinson was at least an inch taller than Eastmond, and I doubt there was any fullback in 2003 as tall as Folau.
Personally I’m struggling to spot a play-maker in any position, other than Eastmond But my preference is to have a bulldozer at 12 to take out the Back Row in order to give a little bit more room for the 13 to do his stuff. The trouble with having your supposed play maker at 12 is that the oppos Back Row is not really asked any questions, so inevitably you end up with two similar players who are jacks of all trades but masters of none. Tuilagi at 13 does give you that break line option, but his hands are too poor to do anything else, so if plan A doesn’t work……
Speaking of Bath, it’ll be interesting where Burgess eventually ends up. I believe he has the potential to fill both Centre roles, but he’d make even more impact hitting disorganised defences, especially at 12. Bath would then have to modify their game to a more fluid style I mentioned earlier to make maximum use of his talents. There seems little point paying for a decent player like that to have him run into 2 or 3 defenders every time because they take an age to get the ball out of a Ruck.
I’m getting a bit behind in the list. My 4.33 reply was not a comment on the list provided by Geat, which does look very tasty. Although an unproven Eastmond at 15 is a punt. Brown, I believe, is the best we have, but he doesn’t hit a line like a proper full back should, but not many do these days with possibly the exception of Foden who doesn’t seem to have hit his previous peaks.
However, for some unknown reason, the confidence of many players seems to drain out of them once they put an England shirt on, which is a shame.
For the avoidance of doubt that’s a Bath back line, I’m not one-eyed enough to say England’s 10-15 should be from Bath!
Eastmond’s first England game he came on at fullback. Scored a try inside 2 minutes.
Ha! It never occurred to me that it was the Bath backline. However, now you’ve said it I think it does have some merit as an England option, and I’m pushed to put anyone else in who will make a dramatic difference, apart from the previously mentioned Brown. Maybe Tuilagi hammering at tired defences (scary!!), but everyone else is much of a muchness.
All Bath need is a pack that compliments those Backs and the league is theirs!!!! They may have it already but just haven’t realised (I’m not fully up to speed on the Bath pack).
Well, on Friday we won 4 of Quins scrums and forced a total 11 penalties at the scrum. Our pack was missing James, Webber, Wilson, Attwood and Louw…
The real class performers on the pitch were JJ and Easter, both brilliant. Seems crazy to me JJ wasn’t given another chance in the AIs especially outside his club team mate.
Geat, I said a while ago I would love to see Eastmond at 15. He would have more time to look up, and see what’s in front of him. He has the pace and nouse to play from 15, and I could be wrong, but I’m sure he kicked a fair bit when he played League. I think Bath and England would benefit more from having him at 15.
I think Brown has been found out by a lot of other teams. He has become predictable, and he never passes the ball (I find this most frustrating). Having a 15 who can play 10, or centre (dare I say it like Goode, but with more pace) can only be a good thing. Just look at Barrett for NZ!!
See geat, i knew it was a Bath backline but took me a couple of second for the joy to spread through me that they are all English players.
As for burgess i think 6 might be your best bet. Louw burgess and houston would be interesting. But then fearns… Well im glad im not daddy ford
We have a lot of depth in the back row (when they’re fit!), but I think 8 is where we’re weakest, as our backup 8 is also our backup 7…
6. Garvey/Fa’osiliva
7. Louw/Fearns/Mercer
8. Houston/Fearns
So I expect when he does move to the back row, it might be 8. Of course, I have no idea what signings we’ll make in that time.
I worry about 8. I think youd risk having a second worse billy vunipola. Great at carrying but crap number 8 skills like protecting the 9 and controlling the ball at the back of the scrum.
I just think not playing eastmond or joseph in their positions is silly.
Kesmoco
Were you born in NZ? What with all this talk regarding Conrad Smith!?
If England want to sort their centres, then they need 1 skilled player & another who also has Skills, but who can create breaks (like Oz) & make space for his wings. Burgess? He’s got under 10 mths & he’s not played a full game for Bath yet? Big ask for a WC. The Bath backline might work, but remember, CLUB ain’t Int’al level… or S15. Tui? Got to get back on the horse yet. Since 2012, which is a bit ancient now, what’s he done v the SH? Eastmond & Burrell for me to start 6N. Tui as run on if it blows up. Brown at f/back too. He’s the 1 creative, confident back (or he was) England have. If unhappy with his lack of penetration & passing of late, sort out tactics & practice, ditto, ditto, ditto. TBC.
Should have said Brown… ‘the 1 ”naturally” creative… back. He seems to have been pulled down by the run off England’s prev losses v the SH & perhaps the coaches’ fear of losing another v Oz; hence Ford’s following orders & kicking the lard off the ball. Helped win the game, but, at home, surely he could have (wanted to?) offered more than that?! No one has ever answered my ? on 1/2 tho. What about Joe Simpson, esp as Care ‘can’t kick’ & Youngs ‘can’t pass’, or so say some here? ‘Homer’ could surely frighten a few, although pref not SL, with his ‘English Electric Lightning’ (sorry, visited Duxford yesterday) bursts & service?
TBC again!
i think your on to something with the entire backline being from bath. anyone read owen slots article in the times based on darwin’s theory (different darwin) about how succesful teams are the ones with the greatest levels of cohesion. he cites england lacks of success down to having to pick from 12 clubs, whereas countries like ireland and wales pick from just a handful of clubs. if burgess could play inside and outside his club team mates then i think he’s in for a far greater chance of being successful
I do believe there’s a lot in that theory. The “big player numbers” argument is always used as a stick to beat us, but whilst it has its pluses (strength in depth) it has its downsides (cohesion as you say, and identifying and nurturing the very best players)
The cohesion argument – I don’t buy it as a big differentiator. Surely there is some help there but it’s negated by the lack of depth. Injuries mean that cohesion is often not given a good run. You need depth then to cope and player numbers are king when it comes to that.
The simple fact with player numbers is that the more people you have, the more chance of finding a gem. You then need skilled coaching and a good setup to polish those gems. It’s this latter that leads to England getting some grief. You seem to have gems, the numbers give you those, but seem to often screw up polishing them. I worry for example that Wade is going to end up like JSD. Also think that any centres right now are going to be annoyed that they seem to just be keeping the seats warm for Manu and Burgess.
I do think that England would be be better off with an 8 or perhaps 10 team top flight. Concentrate the talent more, less overseas journeymen (how do London Irish or Welsh help the English national team?) and less games.
Is also get rid of relegation so teams play to win, not to not lose, but that’s a big discussion point I know.
I agree there’s a higher chance of there being a gem, Brighty, but with that there’s also a lower chance of actually finding and nurturing them. Whether you have a thousand or a million registered players, there’s only a relatively small number of top-flight rugby places available to them. The next “gem” might be playing for some small-town side, but they’d never get picked for England until they worked their way up the ranks – much harder when there’s lots of players standing between them and the top flight.
Nations with smaller player numbers are in a way “forced” to develop the players they have through lack of choice, whereas those with larger numbers can say “this isn’t working” and discard them, perhaps prematurely.
I’ll bet there’s a magic figure for the player numbers that give the best overall setup, and it’s my guess it would be higher than Wales’ but lower than England’s.
I can see merit in that. Was probably better in the am days. Nowadays if you’re not discovered by the time you leave school then pretty much forget it. In the old days you had guys getting “discovered” well into their 20s.
I think that’s partly what SL was hoping for picking Ford and Farrell together at 10 & 12. They have played a lot of rugby together over the years, and at U20’s level in particular it worked wonders. When Farrell is fully fit and back to his best form, I still think him and Ford could make a very good partnership.
Interestingly, Farrell has been named at 12 for Saracens this weekend. SL have any sway there?
Andy Farrell would have some sway there…
I would think so.
Of course it could simply be the Saracens staff want to keep Hodgson in the team whilst also getting Farrell in too.
But I prefer our theory…..
Personally I hope he stays at 12 for Saracens and excels there. No 12 has ever convinced me for England and his goal kicking could be essential for England, allowing us to play Ford without ever worrying about his goal kicking.
yep, i couldn’t agree more, ‘wealthiest country in world rugby, most playing numbers’, whilst both are true, i think if a team play week in week out together they are bound to be more cohesive and have that sixth sense intuition element about one another on the field. think of the class of ’92 and that goal against arsenal in the 99 fa cup semi final, pure intuition, and they played together every day of their lives. scotalnd now are surely in an advantageous position having most of their teams play together week in week out, and i think if england are to be successful in the near future it will be because of the bath backline. my worry is i fear a backlash from your owner. central contracts?
Time the enemy again. Mmmmm. I too saw the ‘cohesion’ article & mentioned same recently elsewhere. Darwin has some pts, but it’s also about picking players from similar rugby styles, rather than just chucking in 1 team’s back line, esp if their pattern of play doesn’t match that @ of Int’al level. I.e., if Bath run it, but E’land kick as per v Oz, their styles of play will be incompatible. There needs to be some form of agreement between club & Int’al coaches on the way their respective teams play for this wholesale back line approach to work. This is more diff here than in the SH as they (certainly in NZ anyway) are run top to grass roots by their own Unions. Andrew found it hard enough to get player release, so how this will work the same here with an effective conflict of interest, will be, er, interesting.
interesting points Don P. Sean Fitzpatrick said too after the NZ game that we don’t stand a chance as long as we don’t have central contracts. Unfortunately i can’t see this happening in the near future, case in point when the RFU didn’t fund the Armitage or Burgess transfers. i heard warburton is contracted to play 16 games a season for cardiff, is that true? maybe some good came out of all the infighting for wales. i don’t mean to flog a dead horse, but you look at what harlequins are doing with playing all their england players in europe this weekend, and you just wander when their next injury will come.
on a side note, i was thinking about the impact of the heineken cup, is there a pattern (or am i just imagining it) that when a country international team plays shite, their club teams usually are in the final?im thinking wasps vs leicster in 07 and the recent successes of french teams. could be completely and utterly wrong, judt thought it was interesting.
Yes Ban, War s limited to 16 games. Well, 16 lots of 80 mins so could for example play 32 half games. I think it’s even ok to count 20 min chunks e.g. 4 60 minute spells is 3 games of the total. You get the idea. Should be good for Wales and a The Blues. Only once in last few years did he get up to that many games got us anyway, what with call ups and injuries. I’m really warming to the new contracts – Lyds back, Warbs staying, Owen William being chased to come back. Webb and Biggar staying home. Our clubs now have some clear plans about where they are going. Won’t be challenging at top end very soon but there is a plan and a vision there now.
And no, you’re not imagining it. This is of course why Wesh regions suck. Our national team is just too good ;-)
Seen some comments that without Barrett England would have lost against Aus. I think this is where SL picks from – the measurable, the spread sheet able stat. Tackles made. Breaks stopped. Moves disrupted. All things you can count. What you can’t count is line breaks not made, moves not called, cutout passes not executed, etc. ie stuff you didn’t do in attack. Without Barrett you may have let in more tries but maybe you’d have scored more so I don’t think its as clear cut as the stats show it.
Banastre
Didn’t have time to finish…. Darwin also said that England’s players have the same skill levels as NZ. However, this is untrue as can be seen by watching even Prov matches down under where front/2nd rows ‘run straight lines & pass like backs’. Also as evidenced by Attwood’s try butchering & Vunipola’s d/tackle on the Saffa to allow a try v England. This is not to particularly denigrate England’s players, as I believe the coaching is superior in the SH, but to demur from this latter Darwinian contention. Unsure of Fitz’s contention either, because, e.g., didn’t Woowward win a WC WITHOUT central contracts? But then, where I came from, SF was known, certainly early on, as a bit of a Jafa. Regds Quins in Euro, it’s in their ‘business’ interests to play ‘all their England players’. This potentially hampers England, but perhaps not as much as their picking from 12 clubs with varying styles of play v SH’s 5 or Ireland’s 4 (as per Darwin) with a resultant lack of unity or ‘cohesion’ for England. On the other hand, all teams sustain injuries & England has more resources & choices than others countries. Maybe you’re right about the HC v Int’al teams’ results. Have to watch this space in future.