1. Something from nothing
Let’s be honest, one moment of brilliance from Lambie, le Roux and Reinach aside, it was pretty average fare at Twickenham on Saturday. Sure, the conditions didn’t help, but it is difficult to think of one other moment in the game that truly got the pulse racing – unless rolling mauls are your thing, in which case you would have been in heaven. In most other areas of the game, there was stalemate. Both sides reaped rewards from the rolling maul, the set-piece was largely an even battle, and for the most part the backs of both teams were anonymous. That moment of brilliance, along with Danny Care’s brain fart, put South Africa into an unassailable lead. The question is, do England have players capable of producing something like that? George Ford can, and for that reason alone he needs to be given an extended chance in the team, because in the heat of battle – especially when he has an uncertain, misfiring centre partnership outside him – he is capable of a kind of individual magic that others aren’t.
2. Stationary
Every single time an England forward took a ball from the scrum-half, he did so stationary. The defence closed down the space and as a result the player had no time to build up any momentum and was stopped easily in his tracks. It is such a simple thing but why are players not making more of an effort to run onto the pass more? It can be difficult to time your run correctly but really it’s not too much to ask of an international rugby player. Stand deeper and accelerate onto the pass and your chances of getting over the gainline are much higher, and yet time and again the ball carrier was stationary and didn’t make any metres. It goes some way to explaining why the only English forwards to make metres were the ones that made an actual line-break – Wood, Attwood – or someone with such physical capabilities that they can smash over the gainline from a standing start anyway – Billy Vunipola.
3. Predictable
There was one ‘strike’ move from first phase possession that England seemed to use a lot. Care passed to Farrell, who hit Barritt on a hard line in the 13 channel, with Eastmond and the looping blindside winger as other, deeper, options (who weren’t ever actually used). The aim, presumably, would be to recycle possession quickly and then strike on second phase – except every single time this happened, the second phase possession ended up in the hands of a forward, who duly rumbled into contact (see point two above) and all speed in the attack was lost. It was a “move” that was executed at least three times, but not one that ever worked. Had Tuilagi been taking the ball it might have been understandable – Brad Barritt has many qualities but smashing through an organised defensive line is not one of them. England like to play through the phases and that can pay dividends, especially in dodgy conditions, but sometimes it is just better to forget all the sports science stuff for a moment and throw caution to the wind. Yet you get the sense that is not how England are told to play.
4. Game time
Owen Farrell is set to start in the centres with George Ford at ten this weekend, go the rumours. If true, it is a blatantly bonkers decision. Yes, it is a combination that worked well at youth level and yes, it is one that probably deserves to be tried out at some stage as, with the right 13 (hint: not Brad Barritt) it could be excellent, but right now is simply not the time to throw Farrell into an unfamiliar position. Anyone with two eyes could see he was out of sorts on Saturday and there’s a certain amount of sympathy to be felt for him – England have pinned their colours to his mast in a way that means even though he is patently not match fit, he is being backed into a corner as first choice fly-half. When fit and on form, there’s nothing wrong with this – those with short memories would do well to remember the Six Nations, when he played excellently in a back-line that was really firing. But right now, what he needs is to escape the limelight a bit and get some game time under his belt with Saracens, at a time when everyone else is focussing on England.
5. Show some ruthlessness
South Africa weren’t very good on Saturday either. One moment of brilliance aside, their attack was every bit as blunt as England’s. Jan Serfontein is listed as making 62 metres with ball in hand, but when he intercepted Danny Care’s pass he was just behind his own 10 metre line – meaning he made a maximum of two or three metres elsewhere in the entire game. Jean de Villiers made three, their wingers a total of 15. The point is, South Africa were pretty rubbish as well – this was a performance a million miles from the one that saw them beat the All Blacks just a few short months ago. They missed far more tackles than England and were generally comfortably second best in all the stats that would usually determine who was dominant. And yet, other than for a brief 15 minute period, you never felt like that was the case. They scored one outrageously good try, one opportunistic one, and generally made their pressure count when in the red zone. That last point is the real reason they won – both teams played badly but one was far more clinical than the other. Sadly, it seems to have become a bit of a theme with this England team.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
England has a strong and solid team but boring like hell. They don’t take risk, I have fun watching Wales, France or Ireland (Yes!) but I can’t get excited by England. And they have the players to play a more ambitious rugby – if they kick out Farell…
… If they kick out Farrell… another bright, inspiring, inventive #10 will come in and be turned into another boring clone of Rob Andrew who plays too deep, can’t get his back line moving and kicks poorly… but keeps banging over the 3 pointers to make us look better than we are.
I wonder if putting Farrell at 12 might send the wrong message to other players. I’m pretty sure most of our other fly halves we had were frustrated not getting any game time because of Farrell, but now to put him on 12 and deny our other centres some game time even if they are slightly out of form might suggest Nepotism.
Not the most exciting match both sides were boering
I see what you did there
Stationary English receivers has been an inexcusable problem for a number of years.
NZ. Arguably one of the best fly halves to have played the game gets eased back into the team slowly. England. Arguably our best current FH gets dropped straight into the starting 15. Different approaches. I favour the kiwi approach.
Quite interesting that. Massively agree that they are managing Carter really well – but I find the comparison of selection policies quite interesting.
Whenever I think about NZ selection policy I think back to that first NZ/Eng test this summer when Cruden was in awful form at the Cheifs and still started. Hansen come out basically and used a similar ‘incumbent’ line that SL gets slated for. It’s also been the same with Nonu for a long time. So essentially NZ pick based on their AB form – and club form is really used to decide on new players. Carter is quite different in that he has been gone for over a year so obviously needs easing in.
SL has quite clearly been trying to get towards that – but I’m not sure if it’ll ever work. With the English club system (and media) we all want the latest Premiership hotshot to play for England – so he just gets absolutely berated.
Would you prefer the NZ system? Or the chopping and changing that the media seem to want?
I realise I’ve got quite far from your Carter/Farrell comparison – and on that, I think we can all see that based on Farrells performances he was rushed back too soon.
Jacob I don’t have a problem SL picking on “International” form even when club form is not there. Burns and Morgan last season are a good example. Playing behind a beaten pack for Glos, but then playing well for England.
But when players like Farrell, Care, Billy V and Wood are playing so badly you can’t ignore the evidence of your eyes. Test matches are very unforgiving, and sometimes it is kinder/ better, to let players find form for their clubs away from the international glare.
IMO rushing back Cipriani in 2008, based on his previous (and exceptional) club and international form set him back years in his development, as he lost all confidence. Retaining an unfit out of form Farrell this weekend has the potential to set back both him and Ford. I just don’t understand SLs thinking.
Completely agree with you on the international form – I’m really glad to see Care and Vunipola drop out and I’m really hoping Wood doesn’t start. I’m also not the Farrell-cheerleader I’m coming off as over the past couple of days – I’d drop him too.
It was more a discussion generally on selection than a debate about current selection.
Personally I prefer the NZ route on selection but I’m not sure it’ll ever work in Eng with such a large player-pool.
I think it can work and I see this as positive of the EPS system (many disagree) that it encourages a more consistent selection. However I also believe it shouldn’t act as a barrier to picking our best (and eligible ie. not Armitage) players. And I really feel this AI series SL has got the balance wrong. Cipriani had a good summer, yet finds himself out in the cold. SL is starting to display some of the favouritism and myopia that people (rightly) criticised Johnson for.
Difficult for SL. Does he pick for the RWC to try to give more experience, something that we have clearly been lacking, and risk losing games or does he go for just picking players on form and risk all forms of continuity. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t!
Massively agree with you Staggy – glad someone said it!
He obviously believes in the Wood/Robshaw axis – so he plays them. Same for Brown.
I think pretty much SL knows his team for the WC, and he is now playing them together every game he can. I think Care is probably the same but after last week he really had no option.
Of course its difficult. Its difficult for all international coaches to get the balance right. That’s why they get paid the big bucks
Loyalty is good. We like loyalty. But there’s a point where loyalty tips over into stubbornness and a refusal to admit mistakes.
SL may well have decided that he knows his team for the RWC, but what if we win 1 from 4 in these internationals? What if we come mid-table or worse in the 6 nations? Does he have the flexibility and humility to admit to being wrong and to change his approach?
I don’t know. I hope he does. He’s been given a lot of leeway and goodwill by the RFU and the supporters but that won’t last forever
PS – on people wanting the “latest Premiership hotshot to play for England”. Of course they do. Everyone wants excitement. But they don’t have to be thrown straight in. We can follow the Kiwi way and get them eased into it to see if that form can be replicated on the international stage – which is why Cruden has 37 caps, Barrett has 27 and even Slade has 16. Compare that with Ford (3 caps), Burns (5 caps) and Myler (1 cap)
Completely agree that at some point loyalty must stop – but are we at that point yet? Not glossing over a couple of poor performances – but really we’ve lost by 3 points to the two best sides in the world. If we do lose to Australia and come mid-table in the 6 nations then that is a very different scenario to where we are now.
On the caps thing – agree with you – but is that SL’s fault? When he took over, JW and Flood were the two 10 options. JW retired from internationals. Farrell was brought in and has been given as many caps as possible and I’m sure SL envisaged Flood being the other 10. That was taken out of his hands though so now he is left with over 150 caps retiring from FH position since he took over – not an easy situation.
Jacob – not saying we are at that point yet and understand whilst we’ve lost the last 5 games, they’ve been to the top 2 sides in the world (think the 3 point margin on the last two is a touch flattering mind)
I am concerned though that as you say, SL has chosen his side for the RWC and will plough ahead regardless of results
On the caps thing, not entirely SLs fault, more an ongoing problem with English selection
I agree that caps (experience) is a definite issue (and not of Lancasters making). As you say, Barrett for NZ has 27 caps and can still blow hot or cold.
As a point of interest (not saying it is at all relevant) I had a look at Sir Woodwards record between 1997 and 2000. By the end of the 1999 World Cup he was 13/2/13 on win/draw/lose. Against the big three that was 1/2/10. In 2000 things began to change. England won 7 lost 2. agains SH 3/1.
There seems to be an assumption in the way we discuss Lancasters record that back then it was all glory days. I am definitely guilty at times.
Just to be clear, this does not excuse the performances against either NZ or SA in the last couple of weeks.
My concerns are:
1) No clear centre partnership – any partnership will take a few games to gel. However, apart from Tuilagi no england centre has put his hand up. (queue arguement about playing outside Farrell).
2) Lack of penetration in the forwards. We cannot rely on one man (Vunipola or Morgan).
3) I have no problem with a bit of credit in the bank etc, but if if a player is clearly off form due to a lack of fitness or gametime then he should not be on the pitch. That is what club rugby is for.
There seems to be a tendency to think that SL just needs to get the right combination of players, give them enough experience, and we will be guaranteed to win the World Cup (just use the 2003 formula….etc…). As if it is naturally expected that England should have the world’s best team. I don’t buy this – no other international team seems to be under the same sort of pressure (except NZ but that is based on their persistently pre-eminent form).
I think we should resign ourselves to the idea that if we win, that’s great. If we lose, the other team was better on the day. Same will apply at the World Cup.
I’m sure there is more out there to come from this England side. They aren’t a bad team, and neither are they full of bad players. They have a strong forward platform and some very exciting backs. Getting some sort of balance that gets the best out of them seems to be a problem. Its an issue other International coaches are dealing with at the moment. There is a sense of favouritism towards some players and an inflexible approach to game plans, tactics and selection is creating him a problem. Ultimately though, England are suffering from a problem at 9 and 10, which is having a knock-on effect as you move to the outside backs. These units should have been decided and in form by now, this close to the World Cup. If they aren’t soon there will be even bigger problems. I expect two wins in their remaining two games, and a successful 6Ns – sorry 2nd,would be a disaster!! Its an important time for Lancaster & Co.
.