Comments on: England vs South Africa: 5 things we learned

By: ArmchairFan

ArmchairFan — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:29:37 +0000

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.
.

By: H James

H James — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:05:49 +0000

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.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:53:38 +0000

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.

By: Pablito

Pablito — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:01:15 +0000

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

By: chuckles1188

chuckles1188 — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:24:21 +0000

I see what you did there

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:16:36 +0000

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.

By: Pablito

Pablito — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:10:09 +0000

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)

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:34:05 +0000

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.

By: Staggy

Staggy — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:25:42 +0000

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!

By: Benjit

Benjit — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:10:41 +0000

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.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:00:50 +0000

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.

By: Benjit

Benjit — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:46:30 +0000

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.