English rugby: a review

English involvement in the Autumn internationals has concluded and, as follows in sport, now is the time for appraisal and evaluation. So how did England fare?

Two wins out of three was the party line doled out prior to the Australia game, and thus the primary objective was met: coach Stuart Lancaster has results and England maintain their IRB ranking.

Unfortunately, results aside England were alarmingly underwhelming.

The World Cup is two years away and England has barely improved since Stuart Lancaster’s first game against Scotland.

Lancaster likes to talk about intangibles like team culture and pride etc., but the reality is that on the pitch the side looks one-dimensional, disjointed and dysfunctional.

This is a poorly coached England side and that was borne out in three erratic performances.

There are excuses for the performances, however: the side hadn’t played together since March; it was a very young and inexperienced England side (the youngest and least experienced of all the top tier sides in world rugby) and a new 8- 9-10-12-13 unit took the field.

With this in mind, a bit of rustiness should be expected, but only within reason as the majority of the squad have been together for a significant period now.

It’s a positive that England are hard to beat, and have the mental strength to keep playing despite looking down the barrel of a thrashing like they were against New Zealand, but this ignores the question of why a side would be looking down said barrel in the first place.

New Zealand are a fine, fine side – easily the leading southern hemisphere team – but they are not (currently at least) a side of historic significance compared to previous All Black sides.

This is a beatable team: their scrummaging is poor, the pack isn’t particularly heavyweight, and defensive lynchpin Conrad Smith was absent.

In the third game of the series, England should not have been so casual and so poorly organised to go 3-17 down.

Being hard to beat is not the same as being hard to break down, and England’s defensive work was worryingly hit-and-miss during the Autumn series.

Lancaster has had a very easy ride with the media during his tenure. The problems with English rugby were massively over-egged following the 2011 World Cup, and Lancaster has basically come in, sweet talked the press and the clubs and trotted out some generic sporting maxims, but where are the actual improvements?

Lancaster took over a side that Martin Johnson had already made hard to beat, but one that had also shown itself capable of playing some very intelligent and penetrative attacking football.

The same can’t be said of the current side, and after two years it’s not too much to expect more than resolve and commitment.

Resolve and commitment should be a given, not something lauded as a special team characteristic.

At this stage if England win the 2015 World Cup it might just follow the Benjamin Disraeli pattern: ‘Failure, failure, failure, partial success, renewed failure, ultimate and complete triumph’.

In the positives column Dylan Hartley, Dan Cole, Joe Launchbury, Courtney Lawes, Tom Wood, Chris Robshaw, Ben Morgan and Mike Brown further enhanced their growing reputations; Billy Vunipola showed he is a capable internationalist – albeit not dominant as in the Aviva Premiership – and the side did display high levels of mental fortitude to eke out the victory over Australia and to launch a stirring comeback against New Zealand.

In between there was a good 40 minutes against a poor Argentine side, followed by 40 minutes of utter drudgery. Not great, frankly.

In terms of absent players, England missed Alex Corbisiero and Manu Tuilagi hugely. Both are vital to England, and so is Brad Barritt defensively, although given his utter impotence as an attacking force and Lancaster’s two year public utterances about a second playmaker in the midfield, I don’t think many people could complain about Billy Twlevetrees playing three consecutive Tests.

Similarly, big things had been said of Joel Tomkins by the Saracens coaching panel, so at least the games were informative in that respect.

Thus I think it’s slightly disingenuous to refer to missing Lions.

So what went wrong? Firstly, the set pieces were hit and miss.

The lineout was erratic, with Tom Youngs struggling against the Walllabies (10 won/3 lost) and essentially destroying any hopes of victory over New Zealand (14 won/3 lost).

Dylan Hartley proved he is England’s first choice hooker, both in the loose and in the tight, and also what could have been with the Lions.

Granted Courtney Lawes is in the nascent stages of his career as a lineout caller, but apart from a few efforts from himself, Launchbury or Wood never really threatened any opposition lineouts defensively.

The opposition sides only lost two balls on their own throw between them, compared with nine for England. It’s a big fillip to the opposition if they know they’re going to reclaim lineout ball.

It also stifles you tactically, and with a misfiring backline lacking punch in the wider channels England needed their lineout to be accurate and well oiled.

Geoff Parling immediately improved the process when he subbed against Argentina, but with Launchbury and Lawes combining well in the loose, and Tom Croft in the (very distant) horizon, Lawes will be entrusted with the same over the Six Nations. There is definitely room for improvement.

The restart area wasn’t overtly impressive either. Tom Croft is arguably the best restart forward in the world, and under Johnson he played a key role as England had a very threatening offensive restart.

Tom Wood, by comparison, is generally safe under his own ball but can’t compete offensively the same way Croft did.

Joe Launchbury did well last November, but this year this aspect of his game was more muted. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that the English wingers aren’t much of a chasing threat either.

Again, there is a lot of room for improvement.

The scrummaging was more hit than miss, with various pundits exercising different opinions on the Australia game, but the key point remains that England are playing three comparatively light locks in tandem, and that Mako Vunipola, for all his efforts in the loose, is not a dominant scrummager.

However, Joe Marler showed improvement, and Dan Cole manhandled James Slipper and Tony Woodcock with something approaching ease (although he wasn’t a threat over the ball as he was two seasons ago).

David Wilson got his usual start against the weakest touring side and showed he’s capable, but with Corbisiero having serious knee issues, the England scrum will be considerably less dominant on the loosehead side, although it must be mentioned Joe Marler and Vunipola are 23 and 22 respectively and have two seasons of rugby before the World Cup.

Alex Corbisiero improved immeasurably following his debut Six Nations season and with both looseheads featuring for top clubs, it’s not unreasonable to suggest they’ll improve considerably with age, as props do.

The pack did maul well too. They’re not at the South African level, but it was pleasing to see England maul aggressively against Argentina and New Zealand after years of technically poor mauls under Jon Wells.

Mauling is more technical than it appears on face value, and the pack displayed patience and good timing.

The second row was the biggest positive of the series, with Courtney Lawes having a breakthrough.

He played all three games, and was excellent in all. He didn’t make his usual bone jarring hits, but he carried well – and intelligently, with a number of one-off passes – and got through a mountain of work, as did Launchbury.

In short, he showed signs of maturity.

I’m a fan of England playing a bigger, more traditional tighthead lock as this is not a big England pack by any stretch of the imagination, but Tom Wood and Chris Robshaw play a comparatively tight game, which helps the locks.

Launchbury and Lawes won’t smash people off rucks like Bakkies Botha does, but the pack worked well as a unit at the breakdown where Tom Wood was typically relentless.

Wood isn’t the biggest, but at every ruck he is a constant nuisance, always looking to slow or disrupt the ball, leaving a leg out to joust the scrum half. He makes every ruck a challenge, which it should be.

Despite exerting pressure on opposition ruck ball, England failed to adequately control their own ball.

Far too many times there was only one or two players at the ruck, meerkat pose, guarding the ball and not paying attention to who was in support, leaving the ball exposed and open to counter rucking.

Lee Dickson was guilty of being too slow to the breakdown on numerous occasions. What is the point in creating quick ball if the ball just lays there in the open, allowing the defence to realign?

The back row played well as a unit, although Ben Morgan showed more as a carrier than Billy Vunipola, although it’s arguable Morgan is better suited to the role of impact substitute.

Tom Croft will offer a selection problem if he returns to form, but until somebody consistently outperforms Chris Robshaw in the Aviva Premiership, there is no doubt he will wear the openside jersey going forward.

He was outstanding against Australia and thereafter reliable, if unspectacular, as ever.

The halves still pose a problem, and the selection of Owen Farrell is symptomatic of Lancaster’s confused attacking strategy.

Farrell is, as Ian McGeechan likes to offer, a Test match animal. He’s physical, mentally strong and a great competitor.

His kicking is generally very good, and he is, apparently, very reliable when playing to instructions.

He has shown glimpses of promise as an attacking fly half, but he’s still too narrow in his vision.

In his defence he is a young man learning his trade, and he is playing in a side which appears rudderless at times.

It’s a big ask for a young man to guide the side and people forget the numerous struggles of Jonny Wilkinson, so I think Farrell is harshly judged.

It basically comes down to what style of football you want to play: 10 man rugby or 15 man rugby. Lancaster has always selected a mobile and skilled pack, not one to bash through the opposition.

With the right backline selection I firmly believe England would be capable of an attacking off-loading game like we saw in glimpses during the 2010/2011 season, but the balance wasn’t there this November, and the backs looked oddly confused.

With that in mind you either select Farrell, understand his limitations and play a gainline 12 like Luther Burrell, or you drop him, try to galvanise Billy Twelvetrees and develop a broader attacking game.

Twelvetrees has the physique to play straight down the middle, and the skills to play wide, but he has been misused by England, just like we saw with Alex Goode.

You could visibly see Twelvetrees trying to take on too much against New Zealand, as if he was fed up of the prescriptive, painting by numbers attack we’d seen to that point.

I don’t think he’s a great fit with Farrell, but aside from his weak tackle on Matt Toomua we know he has the mental strength to play Test football, therefore the main issue is where he fits into the side, and with whom alongside him.

Conversely, Lee Dickson and Joel Tomkins showed they are not going to take England forward.

Dickson is an honest toiler, but lacks quality, and his decision to be the third tackler on Kieran Read allowed Julian Savea’s first score in the New Zealand Test.

Ben Youngs showed the gulf in quality when he came on against Australia, but against New Zealand he was terrible, although I suspect he was under instruction to box kick relentlessly.

In Ben Youngs and Danny Care, England has two scrum halves who play with tempo and who really unsettle sides, but they’ve been passengers under Lancaster.

Both players like to dictate the game, and Youngs especially acts as a playmaker in the French mould. Sometimes he is guilty of being too obvious when he crabs sideways, but when he plays with Toby Flood the pair have the ability to click and both are very good at bringing their outside backs into the game.

Mike Brown has only shone this November because other sides kicked to him, not because he was coming into the midfield at inside angles from Farrell or Twelvetrees.

It’s also no coincidence Chris Ashton had his best seasons playing with Youngs and Flood. He is wasted at Saracens, and he is currently wasted with England with ball simply being shuffled sideways. Farrell and Barritt are simply not on his wavelength.

Tomkins has shown a lot of promise at Premiership level, but he looked brutally out of his comfort zone this November.

He does have a good off-load, but he lacks the pace for a Test 13 and, apart from a few big hits, his defence was very poorly timed, and often too high. In the long-term he’d be better suited to playing 12 as Sonny Bill Williams did.

In the New Zealand game everything he did ended in an error. It was painful to watch. However, at least he can now be ticked off the potentials list.

England certainly missed the carrying game of Tuilagi, and adding to the problem was the fact that tight forwards kept cluttering up the midfield.

The opening half against Australia was the best example of this, and Sir Clive Woodward was correct when he lambasted the display. It was simply terrible.

Marland Yarde received plaudits for his performances in Argentina but, like Tomkins, he looked out of his comfort zone against Australia.

England is good at producing good athletes who can finish, but for too long our wingers have lacked the all round finesse players like Cory Jane or Tommy Bowe possess.

Yarde is strong going forward, but he was visibly shaken under the high ball against the Wallabies – twice calling unnecessary marks – and then following up with some awful kicking. Why the Wallabies didn’t bombard him is beyond me.

He also had two brain explosions when obstructing players chasing a kick.

It would be better he honed his game at London Irish with Brian Smith and James O’Connor rather than on the international stage.

Problematically, England do not possess any left wingers at the moment, and it seems another case of a natural right winger being shoe-horned into a new position.

With the poor form of Chris Ashton the wing positions both look an area of real weakness.

I can see the logic in Lancaster having played Ben Foden and Brown on the left wing, but they weren’t brought into the game effectively, and so it was another waste of talent.

England are still in the same position regarding the back three as they were in the 2012 Six Nations, with David Strettle and Charlie Sharples playing out of position on the left wing.

All things being considered it’s hard to put a positive spin on the November games.

England beat Australia, which is a plus, but it can’t be ignored how mediocre Australia were.

A number of Wallaby fans moaned about the scrummaging interpretation that day but Australia were poor and offered very little.

You can only beat what’s in front of you, but this was no great Australian side.

England then looked good for 40 minutes against Argentina, but Argentina have been routed by South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Wales this season, so again not a game to celebrate.

Winning ugly is commonly lauded in sport, but at some point the ugly wins and ugly performances have to turn into good wins and good performances, otherwise the ugly wins turn into losses. Big losses.

The Australian side of last season is a good example of that because a number of close and ugly wins against Wales in the summer and European sides last November ended with a record thrashing by the Lions and a horrific Rugby Championship.

Winning ugly is short-termism.

England challenged New Zealand up front in a way that other sides haven’t this season, but the gulf in skills and direction was brutal. England arguably had better footballers in the forwards than they did in the backline and there was absolutely no indication of there being any attacking template on display.

Mike Catt is very critical of anybody who didn’t play in the 2003 World Cup winning side, but his contribution needs to be considered pretty seriously.

So, question marks over the coaching, tactics, captaincy, poor selection, the midfield combination and the make up of the back three.

Lancaster needs England to have a very impressive Six Nations.