Monday 21 October 2013

Two rounds in...

Pool 1

The Pool of Death looks like its produced an early casualty. Ospreys' failure to pick up a single point - not even a losing bonus point at home to Leinster - has surely extinguished any reality of qualification. That away win has left Leinster in the driving seat and it seems unlikely they will be dislodged. The interesting question is how long Castres will retain interest in the tournament as, judging by previous years, the French champions are very quick to send out their reserves and focus on more important matters. If they do, Northampton will be left with two relatively uninterested sides for the final rounds, which may give them a decent shot at at one of the best runners-up finishes. For that to happen though they need to perform against Leinster in the coming back-to-backs. Anything less than five points from those games is probably the end of the road. While Leinster have taken a step back in quality since the successfully defending the trophy, they remain a difficult opponent and will be eager to kill off Northampton's threat to their first place. Getting either the try bonus point at home, or the losing bonus point in Dublin, would be a serious achievement. At the same time, Ospreys will be taking on Castres, and if the Swansea side doesn't roll over they should take points off of them. There is the quality there, even if Gatland will be worried about the form of some of the Welsh stalwarts, and Castres haven't travelled well to date. When that happens, it's likely to take the number of casualties to two, with the real question being whether Northampton makes it three.

Prediction: Leinster should qualify with ease. Northampton can follow them, but it seems more likely they'll only make the Amlin.

Players to watch out for: Jamie Elliot continues to come of age in a reinvigorated Northampton backline, Jack McGrath is making a serious impact when coming on for Cian Healy and hopefully Eli Walker will get a better chance to shine on the wing for Ospreys in the next two rounds.

Pool 2

Cardiff Blues' shock win against Toulon has blown this pool widen open for the moment. Exeter are the biggest beneficiaries, leading the pool after their hammering of Blues and bonus point loss to Glasgow, but with everyone on six or five points it doesn't mean a great deal. Glasgow and Blues will be licking their lips at the prospect of their back-to-back - a double from either side would put them in a great position. That seems more likely for Glasgow, whose hard nosed cohesiveness looks a better bet than Blues' reliance on a handful of Lions, players whose head often looks to be elsewhere. They should be focused for the Heineken Cup though and a home win each looks the most likely outcome. As for Exeter, as cohesive a side as you'll see anywhere right now, the double-header against Toulon is a huge challenge, the stuff of dreams and nightmares alike. Toulon should blow them away, but they are given to sudden, inexplicable bursts of frailty. Exeter do occasionally get blown away by sides with more quality than them but its becoming rarer and rarer. Again, a pair of home wins would surprise no one. Toulon would probably be on top due to bonus points after that but what would happen next is difficult to call. Realistically, with a visit to Toulon to come in the last two rounds, Cardiff need to be well ahead of the pack to get anywhere. That seems quite unlikely and Exeter might be quite pleased to visit them last as desire levels wane. The west country side can realistically target two wins there. A trip to Sandy Park and the visit of Toulon seems less appealing for Glasgow but does leave them with a fighting chance. As for Toulon, the visit of Cardiff should be a ritual sacrifice to revenge, but visiting Scotstoun looks a banana skin. Whatever way it falls, it seems very plausible that the winner and runner-up will bank low points tallies. Drawing Toulon in your home quarter-final? That's what European competition is all about.

Prediction: If I could accurately call this, I would be too busy fleecing bookies to write this. Toulon are the most likely, as bonus point accumulation should see them overcome slip-ups. Realistically, the match ordering probably says no to Exeter, as if they beat Glasgow in Round 5 its difficult to see the Scots doing them a favour by taking down Toulon in Round 6. However, Glasgow themselves could steal through; every match looks winnable for them.

Players to Watch: A good pool for 8s - Robin Copeland of Cardiff and Dave Ewers of Exeter have both won plenty of plaudits. Glasgow's Jonny Gray is still young for a lock, but has the potential to match his older brother Richie.

Pool 3

This pool is now Toulouse's to do with as they will. It's possibly rash to rule out Saracens returning the favour and picking up the away win, and it is certainly the standout tie in Round 5, but Saracens would have to travel a step further than they have ever done to do it. It would be a victory to turn European rugby's head, and I just don't see it happening if Toulouse show up. Yes, Sarries came close at the death in Wembley, but my impression was that they'd done everything they could. In return, Toulouse had been guilty of some stupid rugby and a number of missed kicks. They have another gear left. Mindyou, Farrell missed plenty of kicks as well, any of which would have made a difference. Arguably Toulouse's biggest threat now is Connacht, who have a taste for giant killing and a very unwelcoming climate, tailor-made by God for tripping up better sides. It is not unconceivable that after round 4, Saracens will be sitting pretty after two big wins against Zebre, while Toulouse have tripped up. Which still leaves the question of that trip to the South of France. Realistically, those two games are the group now. Zebre will fight bravely but lack the quality to get anywhere; few Heineken Cup defenders will say they wouldn't be better off in the Amlin. Connacht would need points from visiting Saracens and Toulouse to progress, and either would be the shock of the competition. Toulouse will qualify in some form - 22 points is now a conservative estimate for them. The only question now is whether Saracens will follow them or even take the top spot. At the start of the tournament, it seemed certain they would qualify as best runners up at least. That home loss has cast that into doubt, and Saracens cannot afford any more slip ups.

Prediction: Toulouse should qualify at a canter. Amusingly, it now seems fairly plausible they'd end up seeing Saracens again - Toulouse should get one of the highest group totals and Saracens are still a strong bet for a best runners up slot. However, they need to start picking up plenty of try bonus points for that to happen. 20 points looks a likely total for them. Historically, that's a fairly nervous number to end on.

Players to Watch: Another 8 - Toulouse's blonde roly-poly Gillian Galan made the benching of Picamoles look completely sensible. Connacht's kiwi openside Jake Heenan is adapting to life in Ireland very well, while Saracens lock George Kruis is continuing to build his case as a potential star.

Pool 4

When people described this as a pool of death, I laughed at them, but no one is laughing at the Stoop right now. Visiting Clermont was always a trip for a losing bonus point and little more, but losing at home to Scarlets is simply not good enough for a club of Harlequins' ambition. The exact ins and outs of Harlequins' sudden spiral into shitness would make a blog post all of its own and, while Quins could still win all of their remaining games, Conor O'Shea would probably have to use voodoo for it to happen. Lots of voodoo. Their trip to Paris next round could be one of the games of the contest. Everything rests on it. It should be noted that, for all their money, Racing Metro don't look too hot at the moment. Win that, and anything looks possible. It should be noted that both Racing and Scarlets have their visit to the home of Mandatory Away Defeats to come. Neither side can afford to rest on their laurels if they are to benefit from their strong start. Racing need to keep piling on Quins' misery; a loss in either back-to-back leaves Metro with only three wins at the end. Scarlets have to win at home against Clermont and pray for a strong finish in the last rounds. However, for all that those two sides are currently on top of the group, the real winner from Harlequins' demise is Clermont. Those two home wins are about as safe an assumption as can be. Clermont are not as strong as they were, but they still remain the team to beat in this group. If Quins and Racing can wreck each other's campaigns, then Clermont should breeze on through.

Prediction: Clermont's incredible home record should see them both rule the group and end the hopes of anyone else joining them in the next round.

Players to Watch: Rhys Priestland's return to form could be a massive boost for Welsh rugby. Harlequins lock Charlie Matthews will have a heavy burden placed on his shoulders when he returns to fitness, but he may just be up to it. Bernard le Roux and Alexandre Lapandry, of Racing and Clermont respectively, will be looking to cement their fledgeling international careers with big performances ahead of the Six Nations.

Pool Five

Another potential group of death when drawn, Pool Five has swung Ulster's way after they inflicted Montpellier's first home defeat of the season. The French club, much thought of as dark horses before the tournament, now faces a very uphill struggle indeed. Their third round visit to Welford Road is now a do-or-die mission. They could do it. They have a hugely physical pack, smart half-backs and an exciting back three, but it is far more likely that Cockerill will have worked out how to suffocate them from Ulster's victory. A great match on paper, but Montpellier's hopes are likely to end soon. Treviso's hopes are dead, if they ever were alive, but they remain a difficult opponent who will be looking to take a scalp as a mark of progress. Leicester will hope Ulster trip up in their back-to-back there as, even with just home pride on the line, beating Montpellier away is not an odds-on proposition for the Tigers. So far Leicester are getting what they need without playing particularly well. They do have a long injury list to return but, given the large international contingent the club will send off, it could still get longer. Leicester's chances of qualifying largely rest on how quickly their key men can regain form and fitness and the visit of Ulster to Welford Road. As for Ulster, there are no excuses if they fail to qualify. Their result in Montpellier came from huge defence and excellent tactical discipline, combined with a highly opportunistic and skillful counter-attacking try. The trio of tactical kickers - Jackson, Pienaar and Payne - is now being used as a weapon and Leicester will already be pondering how to deal with them and the kick chase come round six. But then, the group could already be settled by then, if Ulster are clinical and Leicester are not. If it hasn't been, and if both sides hit their peaks, it promises to be a fantastic encounter.

Prediction: Ulster should win this pool now barring a remarkable Leicester resurgence and there is a home quarter-final on the table if they can take it. As for Leicester, if they do the double over Montpellier, a runners-up spot at least opens up, and if they don't it becomes difficult. I'd probably bet against that double.

Players to Watch: Pablo Matera has yet to play for his new club Leicester, but is worth paying attention to if the Rugby Championship is anything to go by. Ulster's Stuart Olding is possibly the least known of the recent batch of youngsters outside the province, and also possibly the best. Finally, Treviso's Alessandro Zanni always struck me as a player who does not get the praise he deserves.

Pool Six

Another tight pool, but once in which Perpignan will be quite pleased by how things are going. That's largely down to Munster's failure to beat Edinburgh away, which surely any eventual group winner will do, but six points from the first two games is a healthy tally in its own right. Perpignan haven't really done much in the past couple of seasons and while they've got a decent team, it's not amazing. A quarter-final appearance would be very welcome, to state the obvious. Perpignan now have Munster back-to-back in what would have been a heavyweight tie four or so years back. Now its a little middle of the road, with Munster getting by more on sheer will than class these days. If either side can win both,games that might be decisive but neither side has an obvious advantage in personnel. Meanwhile, Gloucester can quietly get about the business of stuffing Edinburgh, a team who are not the strongest these days. Two good wins could put them into pole position ahead of the final straight and give them a chance. That's not a given, not when Laidlaw will kick virtually every chance he gets, but its there to be done. There is the talent in Glaws' ranks, assuming their tight five turns up again. If they do, it seems like the group is preparing for a decisive match in the south of France.

Prediction: Perpignan to win it. Possible runners up place for Gloucester if they turn it on, but more likely to be Munster making it into the Amlin.

Players to Watch: Lock Elliot Stooke looks like he might be become a key member of Gloucester's tight five in the next two to three years months, Munster's loosehead James Cronin is beginning to draw quite a lot of hype, and Edinburgh's Matt Scott has occasionally looked very classy at inside-centre.

Wednesday 11 September 2013

Something Rotten in the State of Europe

The thing I want most from English rugby is for the international team to bestride the world like a colossus. New Zealand? South Africa? Until we can face those teams without expecting the worst, I will not be fully happy. That is the goal. World Domination.

The next thing I want most is for a healthy, competitive league, a league in which the best teams are feared throughout Europe, and the gameplay is something to really tune in for, not to endure.

That's it really. That would be my mission for English rugby.

As such, I am apprehensive and vexed by PRL's decision to abandon negotiations over a new Heineken Cup, instead setting up a new competition with the French that is "open to teams from other countries". We currently have no more details than that, so I'm not going to get carried away in my criticisms. Right now though, it feels a very risky step.

The Heineken Cup and the Amlin Cup have been great things for European rugby as a whole. It has generated money, it has raised standards and it has been a massive hit with the fans. I've been lucky enough to go to two Heineken Cup finals. The amounts of fans from everywhere, come to enjoy the day out, is huge. What is also huge is the intensity of the games. It is the closest thing to international rugby out there - on its days, its equal. English clubs should be in a tournament of this level, and the English national team benefits from its existence.

What are Mark McCafferty and co proposing to replace it with? The French alone seem to me insufficient to create a top quality competition. They were notorious for their tendency to treat the Heineken Cup as a second class competition, saving their best for the Top 14. I can understand the complaints about the Irish doing the opposite to great effect, but it was far better for the Heineken Cup than the attitude of Castres, to pick one repeat offender. The Heineken Cup as it was might have had the odd total non-hacker who did not pack the gear to serve in our beloved cup (here's looking at you, Aironi/Zebre) but between the variety of opposition, the whole-hearted commitment of most teams and the quality at the sharp end it was still a top quality tournament.

Still, what it might lack in quality, it will - to the English clubs at least - compensate for in terms of a big bag of money. Between the BT deal, and a change to the share of the spoils, the financial rewards are considerable. The numbers are foggy - Jeff Probyn goes over them here - but we appear to be talking about an extra £2m a club. When you see how little largesse PRL intended to give to the Pro 12  - a scant £1m extra compared to the £14m earmarked for both the Premiership and the Top 14 - it is no wonder negotiations have collapsed.

One can only take from those figures that negotiations were intended to fail. That the English and French clubs felt their lion's share of the viewing numbers and abilities to get good TV deals entitled them to help stop funding European rugby. That they wanted to move away from a model controlled by the six unions to something under their control. In the process, they are risking much on the Pro 12 countries falling into line and on the disparity of finance not weakening the fragile domestic games of these countries. Without strong domestic games, their long term viability as elite rugby nations comes into question.

Some will see this as fair. The law of the jungle taking over. The same law says that a predator that grows too big for its habitat to support will fail. How is the England team meant to bring itself up to the levels of New Zealand and South Africa if its Six Nation opposition are of poor quality? What glory is there in conquering Europe, when it is simply us and France? The tallest midget is still a very short man. Is the English rugby market worth as much without the Heineken Cup? This is all very worst case, "Union shrinks to League-esque levels of interest" style scenarios, but they are not beyond imagination, and English and European rugby alike will be damaged if they becoe even partially true. 

To me, rugbywise, a strong Europe is the best vehicle for a strong England. A strong Europe provides us with the competition we need, both as a national team, and as clubs. That's what I want for England. Teams that will challenge us. A strong Europe can generate more interest in Italy, with its relatively unexploited TV market. McCafferty and his friends thought the Heineken Cup wasn't generating the money it should. I can agree. It was a fantastic tournament, more varied and tense than the Super XV for my money, and as global interest in rugby rises it was a tournament where tv rights could have been sold abroad. I don't see the same interest in an Anglo-French tournament.

And now, there is no Heineken Cup to sell. Together, we and the French have strangled the goose that lies the golden egg, and put our own bird in place. How this ends, no one can say, because we don't know what the bird looks like.

This is a very hard state of affairs to be optimistic about.

p.s. Some might raise the issue of qualification. I struggle to believe that has been the real issue at any point.

That the Pro 12 clubs have been free to pick HEC games to target without fear of missing qualification targets in the league is an issue. But it is not a very major one; the Irish powerhouses have been able to cruise cheerfully to both play-off berths and European knockout rugby fairly regularly as it stands and it is doubtful that would have changed much. Besides, most media reports indicate the Pro 12 were willing to cave in on this. Issue? Clearly not the major one.

In fact, the main issue with the HEC being a fair competition, if you ask me, is the French being able to spend so much more. No mention of an European wide salary cap though - and by leaving ERC, the English clubs probably left behind their ability to get such a thing.

Wednesday 31 July 2013

England's Central Problem

Ages ago, a friend of mine suggested I write an article about England's centres, and the part they played in the current non-performance of the wingers.

Well, this is that article. Sort of.

At the time (around the Six Nations) the article I would have written would have concentrated on the lack of passing. Whether it was that they couldn't pass, or they wouldn't pass, my feeling was that England's centres basically had no interest in quickly getting the ball to a winger in space. And that is still my feeling. The conclusion would have been either we need to teach them to pass, or pick players who can pass. Twelvetrees would have sprung to mind, followed by a lot of coughing and looking awkward. England's stock of centres is still in the process of being rebuilt. There’s a couple of other names - Anthony Allen, Jonathan Joseph - but the case for them feels a little weak. But now I feel there is a great deal more to it than that. Why aren't they being encouraged to pass the ball more? Why aren't the wingers coming short for offloads more? Or running off the half-backs? Speaking of the half-backs, could they get the ball to the centres quicker? Barritt in particular was left to deal with a lot of slow, crap ball.

And, does it even matter? Cast your mind back to 2011, England's last Six Nations win. The Hape/Tindall combination we used has to stand out as one of the worst distributing centre partnerships ever to play international rugby. But we won the Six Nations. We did it scoring 13 tries, the joint highest total from a winner since 2007. Seven of those tries came from Ashton or Cueto. Is our centres' handling really the issue?

Scoring tries is England's biggest issue right now. England's last two Six Nations recorded five and seven tries respectively, a poor return indeed. If you read Lancaster's latest interview, the following quote is prominent:

“I have got a vision. But it is dictated by what it will take to win. Most sides are the same from a strength and conditioning point of view. There isn’t the drop off in physical condition in the last 20 minutes like you used to get. The second tier nations – Samoa and so on – are as organised defensively, harder to break down. So the difference will be in the point of attack. If we base our game on being in good condition physically and being great defensively I don’t think that will be good enough. It has to be attack."

So, tries. As such I'm going to compare this current England side to 2011, when a very similar looking backline did a great deal better. Because, yes, the centres are failing the wings - but the wings are failing the centres and the half-backs, and the half-backs are failing both. The whole thing doesn't work, so let us look at when it did.

The first thing that jumped out at looking at the stats was at scrum-half. Ben Youngs was scrum-half then and is scrum-half now, but seems a very different player. He seems less decisive, less instinctive. This is unsurprising. When Youngs came onto the scene, he fizzed, and he was very definitely a scrum-half that loved a dart. Well not now. Below are his Kick/Pass/Run stats from ESPN for 2011 and 2013.






Youngs has stopped taking it on himself to anything like the extent he used to. He has gone from running 1 in every 13.86 times to 1 in every 27.88. Instead, he kicks the leather off of the thing, even allowing for the distorting effect of the torrential rain of Dublin 2013. The immediate questions that spring to my mind is "Does this represent him suppressing his natural game, and does that account for why he looks less decisive?" That Youngs running the ball less takes away one of England's more potent weapons and gives support runners less to work with seems obvious. Is this a dictate from above? That too would seem an obvious yes, but if we find Danny Care's stats from his start against Italy in 2013, they read 5/56/6 - very similar to Youngs two years ago. Whatever the reason, if we are to score more tries, it seems obvious we need our scrum-half to run the ball more. And, if Youngs isn't running the ball, why is he playing? His box kicking has improved, but is no thing of beauty. His passing doesn't commend him above the other options either and as noted, his decision making is erratic. 

Looking outside him, and statistically, there's not a lot of change in some senses. Farrell is a bit more likely to kick and a bit less likely to run than Flood, but their K/P/R is fairly similar. Similarly, both Barritt and Hape pass as often they run - something that may surprise their detractors. It certainly surprised me. Indeed, the greedy man is supposed playmaking messiah Billy Twelvetrees, who routinely runs about 75pc of his possession. Where the stats do differ, however, is in terms of yardage. R is Runs, M is Metres Run, and CB is clean breaks - and TT is Twelvetrees.







In terms of simply making yards, Farrell isn't doing badly. But he is far less likely to make a clean break than Flood. The real eye opener is Barritt's stats compared to, well, everyone. Say what you like about Hape - everyone did - but he made ground, and more of it than I remembered. Barritt hasn't. Now, these are just statistics, which take no account for other circumstances, so maybe this isn't his fault. But it doesn't seem to matter which fly-half he plays with for England, and both fly-halves have got good performances out of other inside-centre at this level. And, whatever the reason, it is baldly obvious that England's current favoured 10/12 combo offers far less penetration than Flood and Hape did. Maybe this is due to Youngs not fixing defenders, or the pack not performing - or maybe it's a simple matter of quality. Again, however it's happening, those outside have a great deal less to work with.

Now, it will surprise no one to learn Tuilagi only passed the ball six times in his three Six Nations starts in 2013, with only one offload. In 2011, Tindall and Banahan (yes he did play there for one game) weren't a great deal more interested. In fact, Brad Barritt has been England's greatest passing 13 of recent times, with 15 against Scotland in what was England's biggest try scoring bonanza in the 2011-2013 time period. 2011's version was the game against Italy, the only time in the tournament Tindall made more than 5 passes (7 to be precise). As such, I can confirm the shocking news that scoring tries and the outside centre passing the ball are in fact statistically linked. Just to throw in another example, Tuilagi passed 6 times against New Zealand, to pick out the other try fest. That might not seem much, but it is compared to how much our outside-centre usually passes it. Ok, maybe I should look for a bigger sample base before saying they're statistically linked in general, but they have been recently for England. Still, there's not a great difference between what has been happening in this channel between then and now - a big man ran straight forwards and passed the ball on an intermittent basis. If outside-centre is a problematic area in our try scoring, it is because we have changed our approach to the game.

Out wide, Ashton and Cueto made more more runs in 2011 than Ashton and Brown did in 2013. Ashton's contribution in particular is markedly different; 45 runs in 2011, 36 in 2013; 6 tries in 2011, 1 try in 2013. This is not explained by less passing from outside centre (20 in 2011, 23 in 2013). That Ashton has not had the same level of success with his tracking runs as he did when he first broke through is obvious. Possibly the decreased running presence of our half-backs is to blame here for why Ashton is not getting the ball as much and not scoring the tries he did. It is Ashton's detoriation which has really led to us no longer scoring tries on the wing; Cueto's swansong involved a lot of graft, but not many tries. Replacing him with Mike Brown has not changed a great deal. I'm not going to reproduce Ashton's stats in full, but it is like comparing chalk with cheese or more accurately, a world class winger with a barely international class winger. Reversing or replacing this is vital. Mind you, another possible cause of Ashton's decline is the absence of Ben Foden, with who Ashton had a very useful understanding in 2011, and who was a generally better attacking player than Alex Goode. More tries (1 to Goode's 0), more defenders beaten (9 to 5), more clean breaks (3 to 1) and more often turning up in a wide channel looking for the ball. No stats for the latter, just my opinion. Foden wants to turn up outside of 13 and look for the outside break; Goode wants to step in at 10 or 12 and create something. But he's not even doing that at the moment.

So, to return to the original thing about centres, yes they could pass more - or rather, Tuilagi could. It seems to result in more tries being scored. But this is too simplistic. Is the low number of passes indicative of selfishness alone, or are there also not enough opportunities to genuinely put the winger away? There is unquestionably some element of selfishness (Tuilagi ignoring an unmarked winger to go himself in the 2013 Grand Slam game is burnt on my retinas) but it does not appear to be the major problem. 

The major problem appears to be 12, compounded by and possibly caused by a lack of penetration in the half-backs. The extent of how much worse a ball carrier Barritt seems to be than Hape and Twelvetrees, statistically speaking, is quite worrying. Possibly this is due to other factors, such as the quality of ball provided. Barritt can produce a top quality attacking performance at international level at inside centre. He did so against New Zealand. But that match was a one-off in a number of ways. Was Barritt's performance a one-off too? I don't wish to condemn the man unduly, but the numbers seem to point at his attacking play being an issue. Consider that if this England team is a problem, you'd expect other players at 12 to struggle. Twelvetrees didn't, but that was against a Scotland team with a poor back row and a leaky defence. However, Tuilagi's also had two games against 12. Both against South Africa in South Africa, behind a patched together and weak looking pack. The result? Two decent performances with a lot of metres made, coinciding with the 14-14 draw, and the 36-27 loss. The latter sounds more impressive if you take into account the last time we scored that many points against a SH side in the SH was 2000. So other players can make things happen in this England set up at 12 - and when they do, we score points and get results. Bearing this in mind, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Barritt is a brake on attacking progress. The same can be said to a certain extent of Farrell and Youngs at the moment too (those 27 points against South Africa? Flood). As for Ashton - I do not care for his persona, but a winger is only ever as good as the ball he receives. When you look at the retrograde steps England have taken in the 9-10-12 axis - his favoured suppliers - it is not surprising he has been failing. Judgement on him should be reserved until the team returns to playing in a way that suits him.

Lancaster's next move will be interesting. There are reasons to remove all of Youngs-Farrell-Barritt and replacements available for all. I strongly doubt he'll remove all of them, but he surely has to change the unit in some way - turning ourselves into a major attacking force with such a subdued attacking presence in those positions would be an incredibly tall order. Barritt is the obvious sacrifice, with Billy Twelvetrees and Kyle Eastmond both putting up their hands as serious attacking 12s who stand their ground in attack. There's also the option of moving Tuilagi in, although that's less likely to gain popularity unless Jonathan Joseph recovers his form of two seasons ago, or some other outside-centre makes waves. Both Freddie Burns and Toby Flood could offer the running threat Farrell has not offered yet in an England shirt. Their defence and goal kicking will be heavily scrutinised if they were to replace Farrell, but then Farrell hasn't been perfect himself in that regard. Flood also may bring the best back out of Youngs again - although Care and Simpson offer the sniping option, and Lee Dickson and Richard Wrigglesworth are better scrum-halfs who never run if that's what Lancaster actually wants. It probably isn't, but you never know.

In a few months, we'll get a better idea of what Lancaster is looking for. Hopefully, it will contain a change in the 9-10-12 axis that seems to be failing England.

And maybe a shock collar to encourage Manu to look for the pass more often.

Monday 1 July 2013

Once more unto the breach

For about 30-35 minutes, what I thought was Gatland's plan appeared to be working, and then it started to unravel.

Right now, I would express the Lions' problems as boiling down to two simple things. Both of them have dogged us throughout each Test and from them all sorts of mischief occurs.

Problem 1 is the huge difficulty we are having in getting over the gainline. We are not creating the initial dents that create the breaking up of defensive coherency that allows our backs a real chance to make a linebreak.

Problem 2 is Will Genia, who continues to look the best scrum-half in rugby and the most important man on the pitch. We cannot shackle him and as such the Australians are always a danger.

If we can fix these two things I feel very confident that this will be a Lions series victory. If we fix neither, then hope is not lost as we have shown we can stay close to the Australians even with these issues, but it will be difficult. They were far more disciplined with their kicking in the second test, creating less broken field opportunities for us. Lealiifano looks a far superior kicker than the flakey twins of O'Connor and Beale. They have seen enough of the Lions' lineout to challenge it, something that is unfortunate with Tom Youngs' throwing. They are in a stronger position than they were in the first test when it comes to the basics of their game. Look at how much better the Australian backline seems to be on the pitch and it becomes apparent the Lions need to be far better at the basics - well, the basics other than attacking play in the backs - if they are going to win. Well, we could get a backline that's as likely to score tries, but that requires the forwards to get the Ozzie backline going backwards first. Back to Problem 1.

We can probably actually roll both problems into one single problem. The Big Problem is the pack are not winning enough collisions. We obviously aren't winning enough when carrying the ball. We are not winning enough at the breakdown, in that ball is not coming back quickly on a regular basis. And we are not knocking them back enough in the tackle, which means we limit the amount of pressure we can put on Will Genia at the breakdown. Any player can cause him issues if he has to run backwards from the last ruck, if his team mates are running backwards or lack depth, and the that player has stepped forwards into a guard position. No player is really going to do much if they've only just reset their position as a guard after retreating when Genia starts to run. We could win the series without solving this problem. But it will be difficult and it is certainly not how I would do it.

So bring in Sean O'Brien and Toby Faletau. Not only will they be fresh, but they are the two most brutal ball-carriers and tacklers available in the back row. Bring back Corbisiero too if fit, and not just for his scrummaging; Vunipola's a big beast of a carrier, but he's not as good at Corbisiero and simply setting himself low and driving forwards a few metres. In the centres, Davies has to make way for one of Roberts or Tuilagi. Again, they will be fresh, and again they bring an extra level of brutality. Already that would give the Lions a more imposing look as there's only so much that can be done. Bringing back Mike Phillips would also be a good move; maybe not justified on form, but then neither Youngs nor Murray has a great deal better. Whoever is scrum-half, they should watch plenty of footage of Genia bringing his big runners onto the ball. Short run from the base, commit defender, pop to large man running really fast, repeat.

There is one other possible change I can see that would be useful, and one I hesitate to suggest. But, for all that Dan Cole has been a bit up and down in form, and looks exactly like a guy who's racked up huge amounts of gametime this season, and for all that Adam Jones has been his usual excellent self in the scrum, one guy gets to collisions around the park and the other one doesn't. And right now, we need more men at those collisions. Would I make the change? I'm not sure.

But what I am sure about is that the Lions will have to pick themselves up and go out there and finally cannon the Wallabies out of their way - or there's a good chance they'll lose what is a very winnable tour.


Saturday 29 June 2013

Pedal Down

Five changes is a large number to make between test matches.

In a few hours, we will know exactly how Gatland's choices have played out - and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people only see this after then, on account of having better things to do with their hangover. So arguably, I'm post this simply so I can pontificate on how right I was afterwards - assuming I'm right to begin with.

Of course, most of Gatland's changes weren't particularly optional. Losing Corbisiero and O'Connell will have been a massive blow, for all the quality of their replacements. Parling is a serious operator, and I'm delighted he's getting this chance as he has earned it with club and country these last couple of seasons. I would go so far as to say technically, I see little difference between their games, with Parling ahead as a carrier and O'Connell ahead at the breakdown. But in terms of big game experience and manic aggression there is no Lions forward like O'Connell and anyone would want him in their team for a day like today. As for Corbs, it's a massive shame he keeps breaking so often, because if he didn't he might be recognised as one of the pre-eminent looseheads in world rugby. Vunipola is a hugely powerful man with wonderful hands, and he has blossomed on this tour in a way everyone but Joe Marler will appreciate, but he lacks Corbisiero's experience and technical ability.

In the back division, Bowe for Cuthbert is an optional call, but I regard it as reversing a non-option call to begin with. Its clear how much the Lions coaches rate Bowe and while Cuthbert is a very talented finisher in good form, he lacks Bowe's nous, experience and all round game. Every mistake today could be fatal and even slightly rusty, most people would back Bowe to make less than Cuthbert.

Either way, these calls are unlikely, with the exception of Corbisiero's loss as a scrummager, unlikely to affect the game too much. The interesting calls, the ones that may well make or break this second test, are Dan Lydiate and Ben Youngs.

Youngs has not been in great form, and Gatland has previously stuck with Philips through thick and thin. For all that Mike Philips had a truly awful game last week, it is still a surprise to see this change made, particularly as Youngs hasn't made the strongest case for himself this tour. Lydiate of course is a Gatland favourite, so he is less of a surprise, but his inclusion ahead of Croft and O'Brien does ask some interesting questions. The lineout has been problematic all tour and while it ran smoothly in the first test, that does guarantee a repeat. The Wallabies will have done their homework and with the number of truly outstanding lineout targets cut in half, they might be fancying a cut at Tom Youngs' throwing. If you are happy with the lineout though, which Gatland is, then it might seem more obvious to replace Croft if so minded with O'Brien. Go forwards ball, really denting the golden defensive line, was something of a concern. Sean O'Brien is the single most imposing carrier in the squad. His omission, on face value, seems odd.

Having given the matter some thought, and borrowing a few ideas from elsewhere, it seems to me that Lydiate and Youngs was a call made in tandem with the idea their attributes combined would change the Lions gameplan in both attack and defence.

In attack, it looks like Gatland is hoping to solve breaking the Australian gainline by quicker ball. Croft was very industrious and put in a useful day at the breakdown, but he does not excel at rucking. Lydiate, however, does a lot of it. Remember too that O'Connell's absence must be compensated for here (while I expect Parling to carry a lot). If Lydiate can free up the ball a bit quicker, then Youngs is certainly capable - for all his stepping and meerkatting - of delivering quick ball. More than either of his fellow scrum-halfs, Youngs loves to put tempo on a game. He's less prone to running up blind allies too - just about - largely because he's more likely to get mugged. If Sexton can be provided with a greater supply of quick ball, which these selections might manage, then he can fashion line breaks. 

In defence, these selections appear to have been made with one thing in mind, and that is to stifle Will Genia as much as possible. McGeechan said he expected Lydiate's selection was with that in mind, while Ben Youngs' biggest advantage over both Murray and Philips is pace. He can keep up with Genia where they can't. Lydiate and Warburton will look to close off any hope of Genia sniping - Youngs will be lurking to catch him if they fail. For all the danger of Australia's outside backs, if Genia is shackled, there is only so much they can do. Some will continue to ask why not O'Brien, who is no stranger to the noble traditional art of bullying scrum-halves. For that, I point to his penalty count - and not just on tour, but throughout his entire career. Gatland wants reliability here and as such, Lydiate is his man.

These are not the strategies of a man expecting it to be over by half time, and neither is the bench. The Lions should expect less from their set-piece and are short of carriers in the pack to wreak great carnage. But the Lions can wear them down, particularly with a good supply of quick ball. O'Brien and Croft is a horrible thing to spring on anyone from the bench when gaps start to open up. I think Gatland reckons he has late points there.

In a few hours, we will know.

Sunday 5 May 2013

Lions thoughts


By now, most people have probably read quite a lot of Lions coverage, so I’ll keep this one fairly short.

Like many, my reaction was not entirely positive, with several selections confusing me. Some of them still do, but having thought the matter over it, I at least feel like I can take a good stab at Gatland’s logic.

The selection of Mako Vunipola over Ryan Grant is a good example of this.  Grant I thought a fairly likely inclusion before the squad was named. He marries a huge defensive work rate with some solid scrummaging. You get the impression most people he plays with look up to him. On a long Lions tour against one of the most dangerous attacks around, he seemed a good choice, and had certainly earned the chance. I’d mulled over the possibility of Vunipola going, but he seemed too raw, too much of an impact player, someone who wouldn’t challenge for the starting jersey in the same way Grant would for all Vunipola possesses some nigh-unique qualities as an attacking player
.
But Vunipola it is. It’s not hard to see why a coach might like him. Very mobile and agile for such a big man, Mako Vunipola possesses brute strength and soft hands in abundance. Already he is possibly the best ball carrying front row forward in Europe, a claim I do not make lightly. He may not be ready to start a Lions test. But he could almost certainly make a difference coming on in one.

Impact and Athleticism are what Vunipola brings. They also appear to be two of Gatland’s watch words this series. Just look at the selection of Tom Croft. Now, Croft I had expected, not least because the Independent had semi-leaked it, but also because his pace and lineout jumping were attributes that none of the competition could offer. Many would have taken Chris Robshaw or Tom Wood, or maybe Ryan Jones or Kelly Brown, but on the hard grounds of Australia, up against their speed merchants, Croft made sense. I also think this approach accounts for the omission of Rory Best, whose main brilliance is in his stamina and defensive work, and the selection of Matt Stevens over more static, internationally active props. Although more on Stevens later.
Viewing the squad for this prism helps restore my Lions excitement, because it says Gatland wants to attack, assuming he can coax it out. There’s a lot of forwards with real ability going forwards, ball in hand, and a lot of players who can come off the bench and make a big impact. Vunipola would be one, assuming he can crack the Healy/Jenkins axis. So too would the likes of Sean O’Brien, Dan Cole and Geoff Parling, to have an early stab at the contents of the Lions bench. These are high energy players, guys who are really comfortable in the loose. Gatland could not have missed the impact the English bench had on most games. It seems likely he’ll be looking to replicate this, considering he’s got the depth on hand to do so.

A lot is going to depend on how the ball carriers in the pack do after all. In terms of raw physicality, Gatland has taken about the most impressive backline anywhere, something that will be familiar to the Welsh coach and his assistant Howley. This move will be derided in some quarters – the Sydney Morning Herald has already been talking about ‘slabs of red meat’ – but given what we’ve got and what Gatland is used to working with, it makes sense. The issue is that, by and large, we do not have the backs who will produce something and magically let you escape from being on the back foot, like Australia’s can. If the forwards can start getting across the gainline and providing good ball, then the big Lions backs should be able to start making linebreaks. If they don’t, then the Australian defensive line will be up quickly and cutting off their momentum. People will waste a lot of words about the superiority or downfalls of bosh merchants, but it will really be down to the forwards and their ability to batter the gainline.

So, impact and athleticism. The third word that helps me understand Gatland’s thinking here is something I’ve already touched on – familiarity. Some will call it bias, for the good reason that it is, but when you’ve got a test team to create in six weeks it’s not productive to get caught up in that. Certainly the players won't. People will always pick what they trust; that means what they know well. Matt Stevens is the biggest beneficiary of that. With no clear third tighthead, having worked closely with Rowntree was a good clincher – and, more importantly, Andy Farrell. I’d bet Farrell’s voice, him saying that he trusts Stevens not to be exposed in the defensive line, was the single biggest factor in the Lions calling him up. Dan Lydiate had also benefitted from this – definitely a high class player, but not one who’s been in any particular form since returning to fitness . The next biggest winner after Stevens, however, was Howley. There was a lot of calls for Joe Schmidt to get the gig as Lions backs coach. He appears far more qualified for the job, but Gatland knew he could work with Howley, and that was the big call. It probably also helped Croft beat out the other English blindsides too. And so on.

So, at least it’s understandable. Is it right? That remains to be seen.

Wednesday 10 April 2013

Prayer for a wing

As I watched Matthew Tait cut it up yet again for Tigers in their ultimately fruitless struggle in Toulon, I turned to my friend and remarked - tongue in cheek - "We've got yet another addition to the people to play ahead of Ashton".

Now, this article is not a call for Ashton's head, a call which would be rather ill-timed considering his useful performance against Ulster in the Heineken Cup, including a vintage Ashton try. But nor will it be a hymn in his praise, for from England's point of view he deserves no such thing. If anything, Ashton's performance heightened my frustration with England's wing play, a frustration I know I'm far from alone in. Ashton can play, but hasn't been. Brown can also play - he can play full-back. While those two have toiled on, we have watched as promising a generation of young English wingers as there's been in some time settle for terrorizing the defences of the Premiership. Of them, only Sharples has received a chance in a game against tier 1 opposition, playing the game against Australia. With the addition of one game against South Africa, where Strettle played, you have the only two games where England didn't play with two specialist full-backs. Ashton has played every single game against tier 1 opposition since Lancaster took over, with a return of two tries.

This article is aimed at being an overview of England's possible choices on the wing. While Lancaster is clearly stubborn and loyal to his man, the situation as stands feels untenable. England's wings are, at the very kindest, not the complete package. The list of pretenders seems to grow weekly. It is a very obvious place to trial a change on at least one wing, if not both.

What does Lancaster want from a winger? England hopefuls such as Christian Wade have commented on being told to work on things so they've got several skills at 7 or 8 out of 10, rather than just the one asset at 9/10. He clearly sets get store on wingers who are defensively in the right place at the right time and who can kick accurately. Add that to a demand for wingers who are secure under the high ball, and you see why he's attracted to playing two full-backs. Given England's pressure defence tactics a good kick chase is essential. Given the value England place on being difficult to score against you'd have though secure tacklers were preferred, although you have to wonder about that. And of course, there's attack. England haven't exactly created fantastic chances for their wingers, which has turned the ability to operate in traffic into a premium, while we've also seen the wingers popping up in midfield a fair bit.

The full list - as I make it - of English winger hopefuls reads like this: Ashton, Banahan, Benjamin, Biggs, Eastmond, Elliot, May, Monye, Nowell, Sharples, Simpson-Daniel, Strettle, Thompstone, Varndell, Wade, Yarde. To which, given Lancaster's predilection for playing full-backs on the wing, should be added Abendanon, Brown, Daly, Foden, Tait and Tuilagi. Yes, I know the last is not a full-back, but since Lancaster's name checked him as a potential winger, it would be remiss not include him. As I said, England are not short of options here. So, let us look at them, going in nigh-Alphabetical order - I think it only fit to put the current incumbent, the most frustrating man in English rugby, first.

Chris Ashton

Strengths: At his best, a proven test level try scorer - a rare beast. His ability to hit the right supporting lines and finish off opportunities makes him, on form, an excellent addition to an attacking team. He is also an aggressive kick chaser - cast your mind back to the Ireland game this spring, where he flattened O'Gara and basically won the penalty.

Weaknesses: Not the best tackler, nor the best disciplined player; his nine penalties conceded is a tally equalled only by Monye out of the out-and-out wingers on my list. His appetite for the high ball has been questioned. Finally, when starved of opportunities to finish off moves, he often seems a peripheral figure, lacking the footwork, power or vision to start creating opportunities of his own.

Nick Abendanon

Strengths: Genuinely comfortable at both full-back and wing, Bendy has a strong running game, provides for others, and looks defensively secure. He's beaten 35 defenders this season, fifth overall in the Premiership. A good all-round option, particularly for a man looking to play a full-back on the wing.

Weaknesses: With eleven penalties to his name, Abendanon is comfortably the worst disciplined player of the lot, which added to his 27 turnovers conceded is a lot of lost ball. Not really the ideal choice for a tight-fisted outfit in that respect.

Matt Banahan

Strengths: His strength. If England want to give teams something to think about other than Manu, the prospect of Banahan hitting a crash line should attract hearts and minds. At 6'7", he also does well under the high ball, and his offloading could fit in well with England's desire to play a quicker game when possible.

Weaknesses: Apart from being more of a centre these days - surely not a problem in Lancaster's England - Banahan has something of the air of tried and failed about him. Maybe he'd fulfill his potential under a different man, but no one is holding their breath, particularly as his physicality didn't look enough last time. His relative lack of pace and agility would be a constant worry in defence too. Still, as long as he offers something unique, people will wonder about him.

Miles Benjamin

Strengths: Powerful and quick, Benjamin is an excellent finisher. He may have missed this season through injury, but last season his seven tries for Wuss were hugely influential in their survival fight.

Weaknesses: Absence, as they say, makes the heart grow fonder. Let us see whether his physical attributes remain when he returns, and whether he thrives in the Tigers environment with the expectation of winning games.

Tom Biggs

Strengths: Fantastic hair and a nice guy, Biggs has become a real fans favourite to have a crack at one of those wing slots. He's a busy, running winger who's effective at what he does.

Weaknesses: Ok, I'll be honest, I can't see what all the hype is about. He is effective, but he's not electric. Would he be an international standard try scorer?

Mike Brown

Strengths: Internationally experienced now, Brown offers a booming left boot and plenty of security under the high ball. He also offers a serious amount of go forwards in traffic, where his strength and footwork allow him to wriggle through gaps like an enraged ferret, arguably making him England's most threatening attacker this Six Nations. Particularly true when picking and going, although that's only really been seen for Quins.

Weaknesses: A combination of a lack of speed by international wing standards and possible positional inexperience leaves him rather prone to getting done on the outside, while the same lack of speed probably helps account for why he's never really made anything of the half-chances to gas someone on the outside and be free he's been given. I suspect he has more international caps than he does senior appearances on the wing.

Elliot Daly

Strengths: Quick, elusive and a quality finisher, Daly also possesses a massive boot, which he could use for cracks at some of the kicks at the very edge and beyond of Farrell's range. Also blessed with a bit of creativity, Daly has shown just how dangerous he would be coming into the line off his wing in the outside channels when he plays at outside centre.

Weaknesses: Well I've just said it really - Daly plays a lot at outside centre and while Wasps are increasingly seeing him as a full-back, and do play him occasionally on the wing, he's really no specialist. Given it's Lancaster I'm including him, but all the positioning and high ball taking aren't really natural strengths. Daly's also slipped off a few more tackles than I'd prefer.

Kyle Eastmond

Strengths: A very gifted all round footballer, Eastmond could offer a second playmaking option coming in from his wing. He has an excellent kicking game too. And he has no slouch running with ball in hand either.

Weaknesses: It seems Bath are increasingly seeing Eastmond as a centre, so he's not picking up the positional experience he'd need. His size - 5'6", smaller than any other candidate except possibly Wade - would also be held against him, particularly if he not regularly showing he can still take the high ball.

Jamie Elliot

Strengths: A good old fashioned winger, Elliot is quick, elusive and scores tries. He is currently equal first in the much vaunted and value competition, "Highest Premiership Try scorer not playing at Wasps". Solidly built for his size, Elliot has made some vital defensive contributions for Northamption this season, most particularly in their victory against Ulster, and has shown a good measure of versatility over his career, having played a bit of centre and full-back.

Weaknesses: He gets some of the big ones, but does he get them all? Elliot's succesful tackle rate of 75pc is distinctly unimpressive. Part of that might be the time spent at full-back covering for Foden. And although he is quick and elusive, whether he'd still seem those things at the next level is something I mildly doubt. Hopefully the improvements Northampton are looking to make to their backline for next season will allow Elliot a better platform to demonstrate his talent.

Ben Foden

Strengths: Internationally experienced and proven, Foden has done a fair job to say the least at full-back for England, and didn't look too out of place on the wing either. All of the elements of kicking, the high ball and so on, would be strengths for him. Foden is quick and powerful for his size, which has not only translated into a good try scoring ratio, but also an admirable defensive record too, with only one real blotch on his record for England in that respect.

Weaknesses: Foden has been badly out of form recently. He has not been defensively solid for Northampton, and his attacking game has only really been beginning to spark again. He too will be hoping that Alex King and the new signings can provide a better platform. There is also the small matter of him mainly playing at full-back - he has the physical characteristics for it, but he's not got the specialist instincts.

Jonny May

Strengths: Very quick and very elusive, May is already established as one of the most dangerous wingers in the Premiership, having scored a number of wonder tries. His strike rate this season is 5 in 10. May's also spent a fair bit of time at full-back over the past couple of seasons and while it doesn't seem his most natural position, it is a bit of additional versatility. Also happy to leave his wing and get his hands dirty.

Weaknesses: There are probably players with better fundamentals, and his defensive record isn't excellent. Almost definitely one of the players Lancaster told to work on getting a more rounded game.

Ugo Monye

Strengths: Monye is in my opinion the best defensive winger in the Premiership - a very good tackler, excellent under the high ball and a superb natural athlete. He's a willing worker in every sense, frequently seen applying his strength in the middle of the park, and while not as dangerous as when he broke through, his 5 tries in 14 games still represents a decent return.

Weaknesses: 9 penalties and 17 turnovers conceded is not an ideal tally. I suspect part of that comes from chasing marginal balls, something the England coaches have said is not a problem, but it can't entirely be so. There is also a distinct sense of tried and failed about him too which doesn't help, although that was some time ago and in a different set-up.

Jack Nowell

Strengths: Quick, good feet and strong, Nowell has the ability to cut through defences and a bit of a predatory instinct - although he's also very happy coming off the wing for a spot of crash. Nowell is another guy with full-back experience and he has looked useful enough under the high ball and when having to clear with his boot. Nowell is also defensively strong, strong enough to come into the defensive line and cover a so-so fly-half.

Weaknesses: Nowell is by far the most inexperienced name in this list, and as such he has plenty to prove in terms of consistency. It will not be a surprise if more weaknesses emerge the more games he plays.

Charlie Sharples

Strengths: At his best, Sharples is very fast and a natural try scorer. He also seems blessed with a fine rugby brain, and looks secure in most aspects of wing play.

Weaknesses: Sharples has not been at his best in some time. He's not the strongest man either, as shown in his game against Australia, which both detracts from his finishing and helps explain a 1 in 6 missed tackle rate in the Premiership. I wouldn't rule out a return, and he's clearly been rated by England coaches for some time, but as things stand Sharples looks a long way away from being an international quality winger.

James Simpson-Daniel

Strengths: Still arguably the most naturally talented winger in English rugby, Sinbad is as much creator as scorer; only 2 tries in his eight matches, but 3 assists. He's also become a very reliable man as he has aged, missing only 1 in 14 tackles and conceding only 2 turnovers.

Weaknesses: His age must count against him by now, and his record for being injury prone is something else. I also wonder if there's something else; English coaches are happy to persist with the injury prone, but Simpson-Daniel has rarely had much of a look in. Is there doubt over his desire? Certainly Lancaster has shown little desire to even have a look at the Glaws man.

David Strettle

Strengths: Long characterised as a cut-price Simpson-Daniel - same lines popping up in the centre, same evasive qualities, just a little less quality and a lot less tries - Strettle is really flourishing at Saracens. Five tries and three assists in 14 games is a useful return and he chases well too.

Weaknesses: Just over 1 in 6 tackles missed; we can talk about Saracens' aggressive defence and abnormally high number of missed tackles as part of the reason, but the other part is that he simply isn't the best tackler. Also, like Monye, there are whiffs of tried and failed; he has rarely carried his attacking threat up the next level.

Matthew Tait

Strengths: More international experience than any other candidate, albeit in a chequered career, Tait looked a high quality player against Toulon. Secure under the high ball, a potent running threat and a reasonable boot, Tait looked like ticking most of the boxes Lancaster wants. He is also one of the most versatile players available to England.

Weaknesses: Tait is currently being used as a full-back at Leicester - ironically, probably his weakest position - and he's taken time to adapt. The last month or so has seen him sparkle, but not long ago he looked a bit of a liability. Throw in his injury record and he looks a bit of a gamble.

Adam Thompstone

Strengths: Big and quick - Thompstone has a very consistent 1 in 3 try scoring record, both with London Irish and now Leicester, and has looked solid in defence. His try saving tackle on Bastareud in particular was one for the highlights reel.

Weaknesses: I would have to question whether he'd still look as quick, as strong, and as likely to score tries at the next level up, where he'd no longer be a stand-out specimen.

Manu Tuilagi

Strengths: I don't think I need to tell anyone reading this about Tuilagi's ability as a ball carrier. In a one on one with some momentum, he's one of the hardest men to stop around. Both Lancaster and Gatland have publicly mentioned the possibility of playing him there.

Weaknesses: I don't think he's played on the wing since he was 18, and it's not like he's been picking up his back three skills at full back either. Although possessed of plenty of toe, it would be interesting and slightly worrying to see what happened the first time he had to turn and chase, and likewise if he then needed to kick in a hurry.

Tom Varndell

Strengths: The fastest man in the Premiership, perhaps in NH rugby - not many would score this try - Varndell is simply an incredibly dangerous out and out try scorer. He picks great lines, he works in support, has the power and know-how to work tight spaces when needed and the pace to ensure he doesn't need to most of the time. 72 tries in 148 premiership games is a phenomenal return; he seems a safe bet to become the first man to score 100 Premiership tries. 3 from his 4 England caps, those against serious opposition. This is not a finer finisher available to England, or arguably any Six Nations team.

Weaknesses: For much of his career, the assertion that he is simply a bit of a coward has followed Varndell. Right or wrong, I do not know, but 26 tackles made, 8 missed - roughly 1 in 4 - does nothing to dispel the image. Varndell's conceded 19 turnovers as well. Apparently Lancaster has been speaking to Varndell, but it would be interested to hear his unvarnished opinion on the winger's shortcomings.

Christian Wade

Strengths: The best sidestep in English rugby since Jason Robinson. Silly amounts of gas. The only man remotely close to Varndell's 12 tries this season; Wade has 10. And, despite being small, there's no shortage of courage either. Watching him shunt Tony Buckley into touch to save a certain try is probably my favourite memory of this season.

Weaknesses: Prone to rushing up to stop players accelerating and exposing his lack of mass, which often gets him exposed. Although he's taken some good high balls, eventually you're going to get done when you're 5'8" at best. No particular shakes with his boot either. If Wade nails these issues, you can virtually guarantee Lancaster will cap him.

Marland Yarde

Strengths: Pace, power and good footwork, the most exceptional thing about Yarde's season is the 90 tackles he's put in - incredible for a winger, albeit one covering for some of the more frail fly-halves in the sport. He's only missed 12 of them as well. Yarde is the sort of winger who's willing to muck in doing the dirty stuff, something that might endear him to Lancaster.

Weaknesses: 24 turnovers conceded won't. Also, for all his skill ball in hand, he's not dotting down too many tries. In fairness, he is playing for London Irish, where chances are difficult to come by, but it doesn't help.

And the rest...

Josh Bassett, who played for the England U20s last year, will go to Wasps next season. The move does look slightly coals to Newcastle, but given the lack of cover for Wade and Varndell, and the opportunities Wasps creates, it could make sense. Anthony Watson at London Irish was a little too callow to be included in this list, but he is an incredible talent who is likely to hit the England radar in the next couple of years, while his current team mate Jon Joseph might find himself back on the wing for Bath next season, and his rock solid defence and incisive running have already won him caps from outside centre. If Sale ever return to sanity, then Rob Miller is the sort of full-back with the genuine pace and try scoring ability of a winger, while the likes of Tom Brady and Will Addison show promise. Finally, Ross Chisholm at Quins is another very quick full-back, and its not like Tom Williams would be that difficult a man to oust from a wing spot

So who is it then?

Say what you like about Chris Ashton, he remains the closest thing England have to a top international wing. But he is not a top international wing. To be such a thing, in my eyes, a player must be either an absolute try machine, or he must rate highly in two of the following three - finishing, creating opportunities, defence. Ashton is no longer a try machine, and only his finishing rates highly on the international scene, and that when on form. However, Lancaster likes him, and seems to rate him as an all-round consistent player with the right attitude, and he is an international class finisher, so we simply have to accept that hope he starts delivering. Given what he can do, that's probably ok, as it would be premature to completely dump him. That said, in some countries, Ashton simply wouldn't get a sniff; the challenge for Lancaster should be to find four wingers who fit his desires for all round play whose attacking play can really put the pressure on Ashton to evolve or die.

In light of who's got what Lancaster wants now, and it surprises me to say this, I'd like to see Strettle being given more chances to place more pressure on his Saracens colleague. Strettle is in excellent form, just as solid as Ashton, and more likely to create something. It seems the more valuable addition to England at the moment. Simpson-Daniel, futile as it is to wish it, would also be an interesting addition in this role. If Lancaster was placing an emphasis on this solidity, and this alone, Ugo Monye would be an obvious addition. I'd go so far as to say that if he played for Saracens, he would be in. That's not an accusation of bias so much as acknowledging the similarity of defensive DNA between them and England; Saracens push the qualities Lancaster looks for more than any other club. I can't help but feel Lancaster and Farrell should trust themselves to coach the same things to other players more though. That aside, neither Monye or Strettle seem likely to be top class attacking wings anytime soon. Selecting them might help England win games, but it won't help them win World Cups. My personal bet for a player who looks like he'd fulfil the all-round criteria with only a bit of encouragement while having the attacking potential is Jack Nowell - he might only be an U20, but he has looked a revelation for Exeter and I am expecting big things.

However, if we're honest, the converted full-backs do seem a better chance of getting the all round players that Lancaster wants. To a certain extent, that's simply because many of the stand-out wingers in the Premiership are young men, but the joke that Lancaster would pick a back-line of full-backs if he could does not seem too far fetched. However, there certainly seem better suited players than Mike Brown! Ben Foden's return to form would be greatly appreciated and should ease Brown out of wing, but I'll admit to being more interested in Elliot Daly. It's possibly a season too early to start talking about him, as he's still settling into full-back, but Daly is quicker with better feet than many of the other options here and therefore seems a more natural potential winger.

What people really want to see are the attackers given full rein though and here, most people are talking about three men; Tom Varndell, Christian Wade and Jonny May. In some ways I am the most hopeful about May. Injury has prevented him from carving as magnificent a path through the season as the Wasps men, but he seems closer to Lancaster's ideal than either. He also seems a better bet to create something in the heavy traffic, which is where England are doing most of their work at the moment. However, how could I not want Wade to play for England? The kid is simply magic and his attitude looks spot on. I've got a bad feeling there could be a few iffy games, and I hope people stick with him when he is given a chance, as I think it's coming in the next year. Varndell, well, there's no doubt he'd be a useful man to have but I'll trust Lancaster on how big the negative list about him is. There's a fourth man I'd add though; should Miles Benjamin return unharmed for his season out, I would back him to start running up a large tally at Leicester.

Ashton, May, Wade and Benjamin - if that were England's 2015 wing selection, I would probably be a happy man.