With the first of England's warm-up friendlies out of the way, the World Cup now seems truly incipient. We're no longer talking endlessly about the theoretical, we now actually know what England's players look like following the much vaunted beasting in Colorado.
So far, it seems a little mixed.
If I'd written a preview for this game, it would have consisted mainly of mild apathy about the whole affair save for the front row and centres. The front row I liked because, while potentially shaky at the set-piece, it looked on paper like the best carrying front row England's put together for some time, with another decent unit on the bench. Most people seem to forget just how good having Woodman, Thompson and Vickery was back in 2003, but the value of having a front row that really goes through work in the loose is immense.
I'd say we saw a little of that. Both Webber and Vunipola put in good carrying shifts and Brookes' nine tackles before his injury is matched only by Parling in terms of tackles per minutes. But it wasn't match changing, not in the same way that our set-piece wobbles were, or our problems at the breakdown. The scrum, I would suggest, is just about in credit. The French are arguably the hardest opponents they will face for the rest of the year and they won some to go with their losses on the day. The lineout is a different kettle of fish and, given Hartley's travails in the spring, it's enough to have me mildly worried. It's easy to point at the hooker and scream insults about his ancestry, but it's up to the rest of the forwards to give him confidence and make it easy for him by getting their jobs spot on. That doesn't seem to be happening and asking Cowan-Dickie to go for the tail after a dodgy throw on a five-metre lineout is just not smart. It's as sympathetic as giving a tramp monopoly money. Here's hoping the England lineout is working hard, as Tom Youngs isn't exactly safe from bad throwing himself (even if he did have the highest lineout completion stat in the AP this year).
However, it's at the breakdown and collision that England's forwards really looked dubious. The collision area can be brushed aside a little as we know they'll improve but the breakdown has been a source of continuing angst for England fans for some time. England routinely struggle to get the best out of their own ball with the last Ireland game being a particularly sore reminder if for some reason you recently watched all of it with a definite emphasis on the rucks. Yes, I am that sad.
In the backs, things went better, but then arguably the backs were last challenged. Bar a few early sorties the French never really carved out space to attack out wide (despite twenty minutes of sin-bins) or exploited the slow ball to go hunting half-backs. It was fantastic to see England carve out and take opportunities out wide with the sort of clinical edge that comes and goes with England teams, but it's wait and see how it goes on bigger occasions before getting too jubilant.
The centres, however, might be getting me a little over-eager for the future. Henry Slade has been a star in the making for the last few years and I heard a lot of people grumbling about his absence from the Six Nations squad. He has excellent hands and vision and combines it with very sound defence - a possibly unique combination in English rugby today - and Watson's first try was a perfect example. It's a little risky to take him along without having exposing him to a real test match but even if he does miss out, he'll be pressing hard for the next Six Nations.
As for Burgess - it remains to be seen where his long term position for England will be but it seems increasingly like he will have one. I've seen a lot of predictions that he'd cut and run and all that but the more one hears from him and of him, the more that seems unlikely. He comes across as very dedicated and very honest; I can't see him code hopping like Sonny Bill Williams. The dedication also comes through in how quickly he's learning. I for one never thought he has a realistic hope of making this World Cup but based on that performance, Lancaster would be foolish to leave him behind. The big question for me was whether his defensive alignment would be ok - twelve tackles with no misses suggests it was. He also surprised me with how willing he was to pass. It would be very easy for him to decide he's the biggest back on the pitch and he's taking the ball and going straight (coughManuTuilagicough) but in the event he was pretty sensible and accurate about looking for opportunities to work it to men in space.
Long term, I still think he might be better at blindside. It gives him a bigger scope to be involved in the game and makes it harder for the opposition to line him up. It certainly seems that Bath coach Mike Ford feels that way, although he may change his mind if Eastmond's rumoured move back to League occurs. He might have also changed his mind based on that game; crash centres who can move the ball aren't that common. In any case, that's the future. Can he displace Barritt now? I'm no fan of Barritt, but I'm not sure of that one. It would give England's world cup chances a real boost and that's why it looks like centre might be Burgess' position for England after all. We might be struggling a little at blindside, but nowhere near as much as at centre.
In any case, it's all slightly academic until we see the rest of the squad perform.
No comments:
Post a Comment