Comments on: Autumn Internationals 2014: England vs New Zealand player ratings

By: Don P

Don P — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:48:45 +0000

Stu
Spot on regds Farrell (& that’s never changed IMO, but now, has PERCEPTION of him @ last? @ least here with some?) & ‘…the bigger problem is clearly the coaching staff’. You said it. Blimey, even the fella with the 1 eyed patch seems to doubt SL!

Banastre
‘all blacks had been in camp two and a half months, england a week and a half. England need to do same then. How is the ? though.
As for ‘injuries (i know, boring and cliched, but any side misses 8 lions or whatever it is)’, you said it.

By: stu

stu — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:35:37 +0000

I think Ronnie is spot on with his comment, Farrell will always limit the ability of a ball playing centre like Eastmond due to the depth he receives the ball – we lose 5 metres every time he is first receiver!!

I think the bigger problem is clearly the coaching staff are happy with the way he plays which, for me, shows that we are not trying to improve our attacking game at all. I also agree with Brighty and others that we have not continued to evolve for a while now.

The other issue is playing deep puts more pressure on the ball carriers and the back row stats show we are way behind other nations in this regard…4 metres between 6 and 7 is horrendous. If SL keeps Farrell at 10 then he needs to bring in someone like Haskell to help.

P.s. I also don’t want Farrell at 12 would rather see Joseph come in alongside Eastmond and Kitchener replace Lawes (if unfit)

By: Jacob

Jacob — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:19:05 +0000

Completely agree with you about the NH sides – I would largely lean towards the home side on most occasions, which in the WC does make me believe England should do it.

Not convinced Gats situation was that bad – Wales had won the Grand Slam not that much earlier so the players were there. England were awful in the 2011 WC so I think anything SL did just got us excited as England fans.

On the WC final prediction – I understand it (but I don’t necessarily agree with it). If, now this is the HUGE if, England win the group, they won’t play SA or NZ until the final. England will play Samoa/Scotland and then Ireland in the knock outs before reaching the final. Whilst I would not say we are guaranteed to win any of those games, we have beaten all of those sides the last time we played them at home (Australia, Wales, Scotland/Samoa, Ireland). SA and NZ (assuming they win their groups which is very likely) will play each other in the semi final of the other side of the draw.

I hope that explains that the prediction is based on some logic and not blind faith in England.

By: brighty

brighty — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:10:44 +0000

I can see some merit in what you’re saying but … I’d say Gats got as far as SL did in two years (let’s remember that arguably Gats took on a worse team, given we were dumped out of the WC, in the group stages, by Fiji – Sl was given the 6Ns champs). So in 2/2.5 years they got as far as each other – except Gats won 2 titles in that time as well.

Understand what you’re saying about the quality of the oppos. I think it puts Wales/Eng on a similar footing – we won all our home games in the 6Ns. Since then we’ve lost to SA twice and Aus. The Eng/Wal match was close enough that if played again I think anyone who assumed a win for either side would be biased. Similar for Ire/Eng and Fra/Eng.

I’m still on that old horse of wondering why, in the current settings for NH sides, and Aus and SA really, so many people are still assuming an Eng v NZ world cup final. A lot of it seems to be based on SLs “we are improving and getting better”. It’s 12 months out. 3 wins from the next 3 are needed to really say they’re getting better.

By: Pablito

Pablito — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:46:46 +0000

Jacob’s got a good point here. Since the 6 nations, where we generally played well and beat everyone except the French,we’ve only played New Zealand, a team that have only lost 5 matches in the past 5 years!

Let’s see how England go against South Africa and Australia before making any judgements about how far (or not) Lancaster has come

By: Jacob

Jacob — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:57:11 +0000

Agree with most of this to a degree. SL improved huge amounts from where we were in 2012. In my view we continued to improve right up until the 6 nations and now I find myself doubting him. We certainly have not improved since the 6 nations where I thought we were largely very good. To defend SL slightly – since then, we have played NZ four times and that’s it. Three of those games were away, and we were only blown away once.

The difference is that SL has had two and a half years and has got as far as Gats has in 6 years.

Agree slightly on selection. To answer some of them. Yes Robshaw is the best England 7 playing in England (which is the criteria, let’s not have that debate). Foden, whilst I rate him, has actually not started the season that well. Farrell is not a better 10 than Ford but we can not start Ford without another kicker on the field because, like it or not, he has bottled it in much smaller games at International test matches. On Lawes – he is a brilliant line out forward and a good carrier too so I don’t think he is selected based on his hits (particularly with Launchbury and Parling out currently).

Saying all that – I am not happy with SL’s nonsense that we are getting closer to NZ. In the last 5 times we’ve played them we have got no closer. Things have to improve against SA this week.

By: brighty

brighty — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:47:33 +0000

Would love to see SL and his coaching teams ratings. Subs too slow, no dynamism after the half time talk, picking the same old, poor decision making on the pitch and , glossing over the consistent losses with the now all too familiar “we are not far off and we are improving”. Not from what I can see. Have improved, undoubtedly. Improving still? Can’t see it. (Gats gets the same stick from me because of the same old tired cliche – I only give him a little more slack as I can’t see a) a better coaching option b) better players he could be picking).

For the last 18 months Gats has been labelled a busted flush, found out, etc. Eng supporters have told me that SL will take Eng from behind Wales to miles ahead of them. I’ve seen him do what Gats did – take a dysfunctional group, weed out the bad influences, put better structures in and blood new players. All good stuff. Except now he’s not looking so golden, he’s hit a similar impasse to Gats. Once you get a team to “good”, which most top end countries can do, especially ones with Englands resources, how do you get them to “excellent”? All of the management accountancy style media fluff doesn’t help overcome structural problems – who are the centres? Why is Farrel the nailed on 10? Is Robshaw the best 7 in England? Why isn’t Foden in the squad at least? Does a couple of big hits per match make Lawes a nailed on starter?

Is it a coincidence that Farrel’s best international games have come under a different coach?

By: brighty

brighty — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:34:54 +0000

Agreed. England have no more injury worries than most sides over time. They also could do with managing them better e.g. I love Corbs. I think he’s the best loosehead around on his day. But he has a proven track record of being lucky to get a few games on the trot. You can’t, unfortunately, rely on him.

Ceadog pointed out where Ireland are. Wales had 1st choice centre last weekend, we moved a FB to wing and a wing to centre. Within 30 mins our 1st choice FB was out with suspect concussion. We’ve got 1 fit 10 playing this weekend in terms of guys with regular and recent caps. This isn’t excuses – this is just saying that Eng in no way have a better/worse injury problem than anyone else.

By: Benjit

Benjit — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:57:08 +0000

To clarify, it’s the MSM who are the object of my ire. But just disappointed that Eastmond by getting a lower score than Brown, Barritt and Farrell is being as much scape goated by TRB as he is in the MSM.

What did the above 3 do better than KE? Thought Brown and Farrell were utter dross on Saturday.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 09:21:54 +0000

Where have we suggested that?! I wasn’t impressed with Eastmond but I don’t think he should be dropped.

By: Ronnie

Ronnie — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:03:04 +0000

Harsh on Eastmond, although I agree with the comment about missing Ford. The fact that every inside centre struggles is more a testament to how deep Farrell stand and how bad a decision maker he is.until we get a ten who can at least check the defence by challenging the gain line every midfield player is going to struggle.

The lack of ball carrying ability was worrying, we missed Manu or Burrell, any body to take it up. Hartley was terrific but I think Youngs ball carrying is more important to England at the moment as it is what we lack in the forwards. Robshaw played well but again if you are going to play Wood, who I like then the seven has to make some yards. Another call for Armitage who is good at making the hard yards.

Once again hard on Eastmond, with Farrell on one side and Barritt on the other, the defence really only had one target.

By: Céadóg

Céadóg — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:10:48 +0000

Ireland have 18 internationals out injured (19 if you include the now injured Payne) and they took apart the same SA side that destroyed NZ. Every international side has to deal with a raft of injuries, that’s the modern game.