England

TVaddict says...

@sandal

True, but we had a lot of players injured and we chose to replace them with older players. If we take the first XV as: 1) Marler, 2) Hartley, 3) Cole, 4) Lawes, 5) Parling, 6) Croft, 7) Robshaw, 8) Morgan, 9) Youngs, 10) Farrell, 11) Foden, 12) Tuilagi, 13) Joseph, 14) Ashton, 15) Brown, which is not an unreasonable XV to pick, then we have the average age of 23.9.

I think the main positive about the squad we're starting to build is that there are a lot of players who should be around for the next two world cups. Being harsh a basing on the forwards being 25 or less at the last world cup and backs being 24 or less at the last world cup that leaves us with: Marler, Corbisiero, Hartley, Cole, Lawes, Robshaw, Croft, Wood, Morgan, Care, Youngs, Farrell, Tuilagi, Joseph, Ashton, Turner-Hall, Goode, who have all played first XV international rugby. I may have missed some out, but that's still a good core of players who are going to be around each other for the next 8 years or so.

We know we're not the finished article but surely you agree we're heading in the right direction?

I'd like Lancaster to start developing second row a bit more by bringing in players like Matthew Garvey, George Skivington, and Graham Kitchener. Garvey (at 25 I think) and Skivington to add some bulk and toughness, with Garvey hopefully around for a long time. Kitchener (at 22) as the more mobile and dynamic second row.

Posted 11:40 27th June 2012

physiodan says...

When England stop picking journey men like botha and strettle then there will be a small chance of a northern revival. Now Benjamin is a Leicester hopefully his defensive fraililty will be lost and England will have a true speedster to pickfrom. The 10 pivot in england needs sorting. Farrel needs to learn to play rugby union and stop imitating his dad. Pass first and then think about kicking... His lack of experience also showed by snatching at a drop goal well out of his range. Persever with the punching around the rucks to get you into the 22.

Posted 11:19 27th June 2012

62Lofu says...

Only an England team could be found 'taking the positives' from two losses and a draw. Frankly, the score lines from SA flatter them. It was easy after three games to name half a dozen SA players who looked dangerous whenever they touched the ball. Not a single England player shone consistently in any position. I'm certainly not looking upon England's future with any optimism. I much prefer watching the ABs who focus solely on winning consistently rather than listening to the constant English chorus of 'blooding new players' and 're-building for the next World Cup'. Just count the wins. It's as simple as that.

Posted 10:46 27th June 2012

blametheref says...

When are we NH teams going to stop these platitudes that a draw out of 3 tests is in some way acceptable? Howley for Wales is "proud of his troops" after 3-0 test defeats. Kidney of Ireland says they've learnt something and there's room for improvement....Only when we fans in the NH are disgusted with not winning a series might the expectation and standards change, with the belief factor entering our teams' psyche for once...All the NH teams going South were beaten before they even stepped on those SH pitches, fact!

Posted 10:06 27th June 2012

MacTavish says...

Who is Toby Booth? Does his opinion count for what?

Posted 09:46 27th June 2012

bokbevok says...

England future bright, um I guess if a draw against a team only assemble for two weeks is cause for optimism then you will need a miracle for a bright future.

Oh this draw followed 2 comprehensive loses with a kicker who left 15 points on the field each game.

You know how little expectation one has when the team that won the series 2 to 0 is less impressed by there performance than the losing team. No chance in next world cup unless you import a full SH team which I guess is quite possible for England.

Posted 09:15 27th June 2012

Tesh says...

Oh yes, that's right flyman, all Praise be Toby Booth, the man we unanimously appointed the voice of Albion.

Posted 07:14 27th June 2012

sandal says...

I was interested by what Booth said about the age of the team:

""It is very difficult when you look at the age of the team and when you are trying to develop an attacking side ... It takes some time especially when you are away from home""

So I visited the teams' respective websites and tallied the ages. England's starting XV at Port Elizabeth averaged 25.5 (total 383 years), just a year less than South Africa's (total 397 years). The big difference was in comparing forwards and backs. England's backs, at 23.5, were four years younger than South Africa's. But their forwards, at 27, were two years older than the Bok forwards.

Of course, it depends on how age is distributed, where you want maturity and where you want youth. Experience, rather than age, can be the key factor. England's forwards, though older, didn't have much international experience.

I couldn't resist tallying the ages of the All Blacks' starting XV at Hamilton. They totalled 396 years, 1 less than the Boks and 13 more than England. Their backs were at the mid-point between SA and England, with only Conrad Smith having much experience, their forwards the same as England, with Woodcock, McCaw and Hore having a lot of experience, Franks and Whitelock a reasonable amount.

Posted 01:35 27th June 2012