Michael Lynagh and HSBC Ambassador Jason Robinson react to England's loss

I think Robinson really summarised it. No one in the English back line could provide a spark. Whereas Beale & co looked threatening pretty much every time they got the ball. Lancaster needs to have a major selection turnaround, else we will always remain as an average side.

Injuries aside.. :

9) Youngs
10) Flood
11) Wade
12) Burns
13) Joseph
14 Ashton
15) Foden

Essentially something needs to change, and it needs to change quickly. It's no use repeating how this is a developing side that needs time. At some point we must see a development. I'm sick of hearing Lancaster bang on about positive aspects of England's game just after losing. If we lost, then we must address the negatives and eliminate them for next time. In this case, there were heaps of negatives, but what stood out for me was our lack of running game in the backs. Drop Barrett and for fuck sake give Burns a go.

Your an idiot if you think Youngs should start with his current form, regardless of his partnership with Flood. Otherwise, looks like a Clive Woodward inspired team though, I like the inclusion of Wade and Burns to add that "X factor". My only changes would be; Care at 9 (the best 9 in England - adding tempo and composure) and Brown at 15. Brown deserves a start even if Foden was fit, the only reason Goode is starting at the moment is because he balances the backs with the inclusion of Barritt and Tuilagi in the centres. His form can't be ignored (excluding his off the bench performances on the wing for England - another idiotic call by Lancaster).

Irrespective of form, the best rugby England has played in recent times is with Youngs and Flood. They are the best half back pairing we have at the minute. It's pretty warped logic to say a few bad games = a bad player. Youngs is the man to win us world cups, Care is the man to win us games vs Fiji. Regarding the Foden/Brown dilemma - Foden has asserted himself as a quality test player, tbh I think he's our best player when on song. If you're banging on about the need for an "X-Factor" then surely Foden is superior to Brown? Gargh

Sadly, I think neither Youngs nor Care can be relied upon to produce an entire game's worth of imaginative rugby. Both have their moments, and both deserve selection, but maybe Youngs should be starting more games and Care finishng them?
I think Wade is dead quick and a good finisher, in my opinion criminally underused. Otherwise, we don't see a lot of the quins back line being matched up at once, I reckon that would inject a bit of pace.

I believe Youngs and Care are the 2nd and 3rd best scrum halves in the NH (Parra is 1st). Both are absolutely quality players. Selecting either would be a good choice. I have to disagree with you that neither can produce imaginative rugby. Both of them can produce great rugby.

@Yoda

"Your an idiot"....Oh the irony XD

Care to justify?

You are is abbreviated you're, not your. Thus the irony

Grammar in a Rugbydump comment section is not a reflection of idiocy. I would go as far as stating that; miss-using grammar is idiotic, is on the other hand.

Do you mean mis-using?

Jokes aside, I agree with some of the points you make. I'm still not convinced Burns is ready for the test arena, but I really want him to be.

Jokes on me, it should be spelt misusing. I do want to point out my original (poorly spelt) post was a joke. Not having a dig! :D

Yoda: Grammar in a Rugbydump comment section is not a reflection of idiocy. I would go as far as stating that; miss-using grammar is idiotic, is on the other hand.

Mate, do you actually know what the word "grammar" means? This comment suggests that you don't. In fact, because of the poor grammar, the comment actually doesn't make sense.

Calm down Yoda, I never directly said "you are an idiot for your mistake", I just found it fairly amusing and ironic that you called someone an idiot whilst using an entirely different word.

Grammar would suggest that you wrote "youre", and neglected to put in the little ', bad spelling, or at least a lapse of concentration meant you put "your" instead, which is not so much grammar as it is spelling.

Anyway, it was a passing, cheeky comment, that really did not require the lengths of explanation from others and from myself.

actually grammar would sugget that he wrote your and not you're...which is basically what happened. You're referring to syntax.

Grammar, it's the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit.

...anyway....back to Rugby...:)

True. But his follow-up comment did...

It looks to me as an outsider (i'm not english) that they don't use their backs 3.
They have to change the way they play to get theirs backs to score tries (Ashton scores when he's moving to centre during matches).

Also, all teams have injuries. England have, Australia have, South Africa have, France have, Ireland have. For instance, both Ireland and France lost their captains amongst others (BOD and Dusautoir).
There's something wrong going on in the English team and they have to sort this out, or they will loose all their test matches (apart from Fidji).

I want to make it clear, when I said "injuries aside" I was not using it as an excuse for a terrible England performance. I said it so that no one would reply "Joseph and Foden are injure blah blah you stupid or something?"

Okay, firstly; form is everything in rugby, players can't expect to start on past form alone, besides England want/need more that we've had in "recent times" and it is the belief of many that Care can add that extra dimension to our back line. Ben Youngs probably cost us the game this weekend and needs to work on his all round game before he can be picked to start. I assume by "recent times" you are referring to the one-off performance against Australia in 2010 (Autumn series)?

Secondly; Brown plays attacking rugby, you obviously don't regularly watch Harlequins if you don't recognise that (most defenders beaten in the premiership this season). But he also adds a sound kicking game and good consistency in defence. It is not only about creative attacking rugby, it is about striking a balance and with the addition on a second receiver at 12 (possibly Burns), Brown fits the bill in my opinion (an opinion shared by Sir Clive Woodward). Argue with that.

Form alone is NOT everything. Teams must be selected based upon form + ability + potential. And Ben Youngs did NOT cost us that game, I'd love to see your reasoning behind that. It may have passed your memory but it was a poor kick from Care that lead to Cummins going over in the corner (granted there were other factors leading to that). By recent times I am referring to the brief period from late 2010 - early 2011 when watching England was actually enjoyable.

I may be severely miss-placed and out of my depth to argue with Sir Clive Woodward, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am of the opinion that Foden is the best option at full back.

You mentioned the need to find a balance with creative attacking rugby, I assume you implied that we need more composure and control? Why? What we desperately need is more creativity, otherwise we would just stick with Barrett and Farrell. And what makes Brown more controlled than Foden? There's few full backs I would feel safer with than Foden. I completely agree with you on Burns. And I also completely agree with Kadova's comment. Burns can attack and act as a foil (similar to Goode) to Flood. So we can then distribute it to our back 3 and unlock our potential as a team.

To an extent you are right, but by everything I meant; without the required level of current form, a player cannot start. In that respect yes, form is everything (as form reflects ability & potential to an extent). It would be a mistake not to pick a player on good form in order to start a player purely because of potential & ability reflected in the past. But to select a player on form alone, they can show their ability & potential and create competition for places (urging players to perform to a higher standard). Simple.

As soon as Youngs came on, he made bad decisions (not only with the tap'n'go but also with poor decision making to go open or blind), he handled the pressure poorly, dropping two crucial balls. I do not blame him for our performance, but it should be noted; if we had taken our opportunities in the last 20 and made the right attacking decisions then we might have undeservedly won it. And for that I blame Lancaster, Youngs and sadly Robshaw (who I admire greatly).

And yes, we do need more composure and control, that goes without saying. But we also need a lot more creativity. I didn't say Brown was more controlled, I said he had a better all-round game (in my opinion) - complementing your proposed back line well.

Well if I say anything more I'll only be repeating myself, so to save us going round in circles I will agree to disagree.

One thing I will add is that the decision to tap and go near the end was actually made by Robshaw. When RD uploads highlights listen to him shouting "GO..GOOOO!".

Fair enough, I did say Robshaw too though...

Nice to see Michael Lynagh back in public punditry, mainly of course because I think he talks a lot of sense. I'd actually forgotten about his stroke at the beginning and thought "hang on, why does he seem nervous?", but good to see he seems to have now made a full recovery.

Surley this is just cheating from Australia you cant have the best openside flanker in the world then you just replace him with some 21 year old look-a-like who is as good as him !
also i would not have flood playing. I dont mind him but if we had burns he would be able to get pass players with the half chances then at 12 i dont know who we would have though barritt is not that bad the offload to tuilagi was impressive for the try. If you want complete fast attacking rugby then

9. Care
10. Burns
11. Wade
12. Goode ( quick enough and good defence)
13. Joseph
14. Ashton
15. Abendanon could play ?

Almost spot on.

100% on Goode. He played well against Fiji because he acted as a second receiver up in the line, not as a line breaker from the back like Jason Robinson. He lacks the pace to be an out-and-out FB so why not play him where he is good at operating - In the thick of the action. Australia pinned him back last weekend and consequently he was a non-factor in the back field. We desperately need handling skills and creativity in midfield.

9. Dickson/Care
10 Flood
11. Strettle
12. Goode
13. Tuilagi
14. Ashton
15. Brown (with Foden to come back because I'm not a Brown fan)

bench: Burns, Joseph

If the it wasn't the Boks I'd have Tuilagi at 11 and and Joseph at 13, but England probably need a hard hitter in midfield. Backrow also desperately needs a shake up and Woods, Morgan and Launchbury should be looked at.

Please God not strettle, but I agree with the back row shake up

6. Robshaw good tackler could still captain the team though Woods would not weaken the team in anyway( would be captain if not for foot injury )

7. And bloody Armitage the best top 14 player wrecking ball and he is not picked which makes no sense when we can not slow the opposition ball down woods could be good but not sure at openside ?

8. Launchbury, not a fan of Morgan he goes missing against big teams. Only wish we had our own Louis Picamoles

Isn't the reason Armitage isn't playing that he is playing in France instead of England? I could be wrong here, but I somehow vaguely remember that England was planning or has already introduced a rule that would exclude players to play for England that are playing for a club abroad. I know that both Australia and New Zealand have that rule in place, but I'm not 100% sure about England

Lancaster has said he'll only pick players not based in England "in exceptional circumstances", which pretty much means if all possible players for that position are injured.

The rule is not quite as strictly prohibitive as the Australia and NZ ones, but kind of is the same in practice. Martin Johnson secured an agreement with the Premiership clubs guaranteeing that Elite Player Squad players would be released from their clubs for training camps, including outside Test match windows. The RFU don't (and practically speaking, because of differing domestic fixture lists, can't) have similar agreements with other rugby unions.

Manu played WING the whole of his junior days ......... & boy does it show !!

Then Flood and Tuilagi could be on the bench then you could have flood closing out the game. And Tuilagi could come off the bench and be a battering ram towards the line when they have tired legs

battering ram ???? zzzzzzzzzzzzz please santa, bring us a 'non' battering ram for xmas

This may seem like a silly question, but do the english national coaches speak with the premiership coaches at all regarding the players brought into the national squad? There seems to be a massive difference on how some of theses guys perform at national level. Actually same can be said for the irish squad.

In all honesty I think the English played quite well and made some excellent breaks and had some good backline play. Can be improved of course but that just means playing more together, I think they are going to give us trouble next week.

People are deluding themselevs if they think that making a few changes on the teamsheet will make any significant difference. What we are witnessing is the failure of English rugby culture, a culture in which the RFU and the clubs are equally culpable in producing a team that plays turgid, directionless rugby made even worse by an evident lack of basic skills and game management. The Premiership is a breeding ground for one-dimensional players and one dimensional teams. With the exception two or three examples, the majority of those twelve teams play an utterly uninspiring version of the sport, hampered by the total arse-paralysing fear of relegation and all that financial implications that flow from that. The system as it exists is simply not producing the kinds of players that can thrive at test level. Even the Heineken Cup doesn't help, as English clubs are usually knocked out before any meaningful stage of the competition these days.

The reason why the Woodward era was so successful was because he changed the culture of the team. He took players who in someone else's hands would have been entirely average (looking at you, Tindall) and made them something better. It was a root and branch reform of how the came was approached and played and we need something similar very soon or the England team will forever just blunder along, flattering to deceieve and taking most of the enjoyment out of the game as we witness them thrashing lower teams and then floundering badly in the face of skill and pace.

+100

The truth is hard to swallow. Great analysis on all points.

Funky Rooster is spot on ...... Pods.....zzzzzzzzzzz No risk rugby zzzzzzzzzzz

I asked a Premiership Head Coach recently, why don't XXX??XXXX have 'gamble runners' trying to receive offloads as NZ do? answer, too risky, they can't adjust to secure the ruck possession....... zzzzzzzz

flare coached out, in favour of %'s ........ same as england footy, v the Latin countries

Funky Rooster is spot on ...... Pods.....zzzzzzzzzzz No risk rugby zzzzzzzzzzz

I asked a Premiership Head Coach recently, why don't XXX??XXXX have 'gamble runners' trying to receive offloads as NZ do? answer, too risky, they can't adjust to secure the ruck possession....... zzzzzzzz

flare coached out, in favour of %'s ........ same as england footy, v the Latin countries

The irony is that if you practice these skills enough, as New Zealand do, then these become relatively low percentage skills to execute.

Like everything it just takes repetition before these things become second nature. If you never try you've already failed.

Its a systemic problem in England. A whole generation of of players who have had low risk rugby drilled into them are now the coaches passing on this "knowledge" to the next gen. Junior English national teams are having a good go at player development but it is almost totally fruitless once they get to the clubs. Someone like George Ford at Leiceister will struggle to further develop his skills beyond junior level, though he'll no doubt get bulkier. Teams like the Crusaders will just take your skills higher and higher. Just watch Tuilagi's passing remain the same for the rest of his career. Very hard to break this cycle. Its called culture.

Not making any rash accusations, but I would like to know how many people calling for burns to play, ESPECIALLY at 12 have watched him play this season as opposed to just seen his stats.

He is undoubtedly a incredible talent hopefully at the start of a long and successful rise - you cannot however just pick a 10 at 12 and claim the extra play making outweighs everything else you change.

Freddie is a 10 - to suggest he should play at 12 against SA on his debut test to me suggests that none of us have learnt from past mistakes. Centres is a highly magnified position - its hard enough to debut there especially when its not your position, barely even mentioning the strength SA have in strike runners in that position.

There is also an abundant lack of understanding as to barrits position in this team. Please dont miss quote me or misunderstand my comments here, Im not for a moment saying we should play this way but the set up lancaster seems to playing around Manu's game requires a centre like Barrit. Manu's tackling prowess is well documented, his all round defence however needs a lot of work. He is still looking for the big smash and regularly shafting the winger with overlaps happened at least twice again at the weekend. Barrit at least adds security in this position and appears to do better than others have at keeping manu in the line as he should.

I agree with you Burns is not physical enough for centres Barritt i like alot always have done, better attacker than given credit for because he does make alot of yards in fairness to him.

Took two tackles and still got the ball away to manu for the try on saturday, if roberts/nonu/sbw etc did that it wouldnt have gone as unoticed.

A non expansive, solid 12 is how england have played for a long time. If fans dont like that complain at the system not the player who is obviously doing everything asked of him - otherwise he'd have already been dropped.

also if you want to play a smaller play maker in that position dont complain when he gets smashed and disappears from the england set up, for reference - allen and tait etc

Very enjoyable game to watch I thought (obviously helped that Australia won).

I like that Australia finally put some decent back play together (at least for a while) and that for a large part of the match they seemed comfortable with ball in hand. I was flabbergaster by the scrum improvement. I was expecting the Aussies to be bullied around all day long, yet they somehow managed to drastically improve. Raises the question if France is THAT good, England THAT bad or Australia just improved that much...

I must say though that i was impressed with England's willingness to play the game fast. I always love to see teams having a go, and even if it doesn't work I'd love to see Australia to do it more often. Great to see that one of the tap penalties paid off for England and they got a try out of it. Pity the press has smashed them over their decisions..

Paid Survey for Messengers

Are you using a messenger such as Skype, Whatsapp, ooVoo etc.? Participate in a survey and win iPad (mini)! This is not spam – you can contact us directly: Gleb Zhukov at gleb.zhukov@axience.com. Please follow the link to sign-up for the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5KC7T33

Brilliant to see Lynagh looking so well. Robinson is looking pretty trim too, any chance we can persuade him to dust off his boots? He was genuinely world class, we haven't found a back 3 near as good since.

Now, without starting a riot, I find it very difficult to support England. We have mincey players who get the best equipment and facilities, they get pampered by the sponsors and yet they just look average on the pitch. Instead I find Argentina are the team I can really get behind, masses of passion and determination. They played in the South American wilderness until the inclusion in the Rugby Championship, they play with pride and are now getting a set of backs worthy of their pack, which after some of the class of 2007 retired, I thought they might never be able to do.

I don't think you'll be starting any riots with that perfectly reasonable assessment...