England Fullback

[Dunbar]

we see tries by backs all the time in poor conditions we shouldnt overstate that. Our link play to backs was dire.

I agree our back play structures were poor.

I also agree that this is not the strongest part of Hardaker's game (and is a strength of Tomkins) and Williams did not have a good series.

But the conditions were a contributing factor.

[Dave T]

I agree our back play structures were poor.

I also agree that this is not the strongest part of Hardaker's game (and is a strength of Tomkins) and Williams did not have a good series.

But the conditions were a contributing factor.

absolutely but the bigger factor was that key players were slightly off imho. Widdopp was like a headless chicken running round in circles confusing his own players, Hardaker was inneffective even in his basic kick returns etc. and our uncertainty at 7 was an issue.

I dont think the tactics were an issue, our forwards romped it and set the platform, unfortunately the skill for some of the plays was lacking, and I dont blame international managers for that.

I do blame them for uninspiring selections at halves and Bateman at centre, but I put most of it just down to some players being off. Widdopp is surely at make or break point for england this year.

Fortunately the majority of our players were on form and the forwards killed it, but i think that was more down to necessity than planning. We really should have beaten the Kiwis quite handsomely based on what the forwards did.

[meast]

Is that a tounge in cheek statement Meast?

Have a guess

[GaryO]

McNamara has always had England playing an expansive style tgroughought his tenure.

Considering that is your opinion Dave, then you should put his selections under the microscope, there was a marked difference circa '14 in my opinion both before and after.

Unfortunately, Deacon could not show us whether it was - again, in my opinion - his input or otherwise due to his defection to the dark side.

[GaryO]

Have a guess

Benefit of the doubt goes in your favour Meast.

[Dunbar]

absolutely but the bigger factor was that key players were slightly off imho. Widdopp was like a headless chicken running round in circles confusing his own players, Hardaker was inneffective even in his basic kick returns etc. and our uncertainty at 7 was an issue.

I dont think the tactics were an issue, our forwards romped it and set the platform, unfortunately the skill for some of the plays was lacking, and I dont blame international managers for that.

I do blame them for uninspiring selections at halves and Bateman at centre, but I put most of it just down to some players being off. Widdopp is surely at make or break point for england this year.

Fortunately the majority of our players were on form and the forwards killed it, but i think that was more down to necessity than planning. We really should have beaten the Kiwis quite handsomely based on what the forwards did.

 

Yes, I completely agree.  Despite having a break out season Williams was clearly too inexperienced to step up to international rugby (and it was a very big call to include him) and Hardaker has never been a ball playing full back.  That leaves a whole load of pressure on Widdop to run the game and provide structure and Widdop's game is far more improvised than structured anyway.  As you say, with all this in mind the English forwards stood up and won the games.

 

You ony have to see what effect Smith had when he came in adding a bit of structure and guiding the team around the field in game 3.  And I don't think Smith is international class (although he has stepped up and performed ok a few times).

 

Fast forward to this year and I would love to see a half back who has a structure and kicking game (Sneyd or Gale?) and a handling attacking threat from full back (Tomkins, Lomax?) letting Widdop play his natural game and it could be very different.

 

I am sure Bennett has a plan - he is after all the best coach of his generation so I hope so.

[Dave T]

Considering that is your opinion Dave, then you should put his selections under the microscope, there was a marked difference circa '14 in my opinion both before and after.

Unfortunately, Deacon could not show us whether it was - again, in my opinion - his input or otherwise due to his defection to the dark side.

of course we are just giving opinions as we have nowt else to go on, but mine is that assistants are given too much credit/stick depending on whether teams are doing well or not.

From 2014 we took out Clark who hadnt replicated his form, and Tomkins injured. Smith was also in poor form in 2015. Key positions off form and imo had a big impact on the performances. Thankfully the forwards were even better than 2014 with the likes of Whitehead brilliant.

With Tomkins at 1 this year i would be more hopeful, but we need to review halves, and probably be bold with Sneyd or Gale instead of steady.

[Dave T]

Yes, I completely agree. Despite having a break out season Williams was clearly too inexperienced to step up to international rugby (and it was a very big call to include him) and Hardaker has never been a ball playing full back. That leaves a whole load of pressure on Widdop to run the game and provide structure and Widdop's game is far more improvised than structured anyway. As you say, with all this in mind the English forwards stood up and won the games.

You ony have to see what effect Smith had when he came in adding a bit of structure and guiding the team around the field in game 3. And I don't think Smith is international class (although he has stepped up and performed ok a few times).

Fast forward to this year and I would love to see a half back who has a structure and kicking game (Sneyd or Gale?) and a handling attacking threat from full back (Tomkins, Lomax?) letting Widdop play his natural game and it could be very different.

I am sure Bennett has a plan - he is after all the best coach of his generation so I hope so.

was typing at the same time as you - seems we pretty much agree.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I'd definitely see how Shaul goes on the Super 8s and the CCF before selecting him. He had a cracking start to the season but dropped off a bit in recent weeks. He's starting to pick up again and hopefully will recapture that early season form. He's had to shake off a few knocks.

He's got plenty of chances to show he can do it on the big stage before the intentional season though. As have Houghton, Sneyd, Watts and Taylor.

Even Kirk Yeaman is in the form of his life! What a great story it's been for him!

[GeordieSaint]

I'd definitely see how Shaul goes on the Super 8s and the CCF before selecting him. He had a cracking start to the season but dropped off a bit in recent weeks. He's starting to pick up again and hopefully will recapture that early season form.

I like Shaul; electric in some space. What's his distribution game like as this is a vital component at international level and why I don't think Hardaker is good enough.

[GaryO]

of course we are just giving opinions as we have nowt else to go on, but mine is that assistants are given too much credit/stick depending on whether teams are doing well or not.

From 2014 we took out Clark who hadnt replicated his form, and Tomkins injured. Smith was also in poor form in 2015. Key positions off form and imo had a big impact on the performances. Thankfully the forwards were even better than 2014 with the likes of Whitehead brilliant.

With Tomkins at 1 this year i would be more hopeful, but we need to review halves, and probably be bold with Sneyd or Gale instead of steady.

Totally agree Dave re halfbacks, I was totally aghast at Luke Gale's non selection last year he was the outstanding half of the comp, and that was an Achilles heel of Mac's selections, remember Sinfield and Chase being given the job in '13, 8 month's before the WC when in Feb at the start of the season he said I will pick player's in form.

[Lowdesert]

Tomkins put his body on the line v Ellis on Friday. Ellis basically made the wrong choice and stepped into him. If he carries on running, he scores. None the less a great stop.

His defence might have improved/ still be good, but in attack I think he has lost it. Maybe the injury, maybe confidence, maybe still time to get it back. But right now? No way.

Lomax? Good player but Injury prone and a lot to prove.

Ratchford? Utility player, not international class yet.

Shaul? Maybe. Still made the breaks against an extremely compressed and passionate Wigan defence.

Maybe this next 7 or so games will tell us more but until then I think Hardaker is still in the seat.

[Dave T]

Tomkins put his body on the line v Ellis on Friday. Ellis basically made the wrong choice and stepped into him. If he carries on running, he scores. None the less a great stop.

His defence might have improved/ still be good, but in attack I think he has lost it. Maybe the injury, maybe confidence, maybe still time to get it back. But right now? No way.

Lomax? Good player but Injury prone and a lot to prove.

Ratchford? Utility player, not international class yet.

Shaul? Maybe. Still made the breaks against an extremely compressed and passionate Wigan defence.

Maybe this next 7 or so games will tell us more but until then I think Hardaker is still in the seat.

why no critique on Hardaker? Rubbish this year, ineffective for England last year, and not playing fullback currently.

Three reasons he's a no.

[Lowdesert]

why no critique on Hardaker? Rubbish this year, ineffective for England last year, and not playing fullback currently.

Three reasons he's a no.

Probably right, but I've seen nothing to see him displaced Dave and for each there could be more reasons or less. I just don't think we've seen any full back make us say 'he's nailed on'. Shaul, in a competitive Hull team has shone. Genuine pace, where Tomkins appears to have slowed. Pace makes defenders react like nothing else.

Lomax, Ratchford, not too quick. So, I would discount them, leaving Hardaker, Shaul and Tomkins.

The 'not playing fullback currently' comment doesn't carry weight otherwise Inglis, Lockyer, Sculthorpe would/could have been left out of their respective national teams. Bennett will see him in action for Penrith anyway.

Tomkins used to come into the line and create a link and an individual threat. Now, it's just a link to form an overlap. No way he's right for England right now.

[Tommygilf]

Could we see widdop realistically moving to fullback for St George in the same way Dugan moved to centre to increase chances of NSW selection?

If not I'm yet to be totally convinced by Tomkins this year, but give him a chance.

I think with Shaul a good idea to introduce him to the international arena would be to give him some games on the wing. He's certainly capable and is faster than say Ryan Hall. Also the wing is a good position to learn and observe a teams structures and plays.

Zak has been absolutely dour this year although I'm not sure whether this is more to do with being disinterested in playing for Leeds as it is about his actual ability. He should still get in the squad I'd think, even if not at FB.

[jackknife]

I think by the end of season Tomkins n Hardaker will have found form n will be the 2 to choose from.

[Dunbar]

I think by the end of season Tomkins n Hardaker will have found form n will be the 2 to choose from.

I'm not sure Hardaker will get a game at full back before the end of the year though.

[Lowdesert]

Could we see widdop realistically moving to fullback for St George in the same way Dugan moved to centre to increase chances of NSW selection?

If not I'm yet to be totally convinced by Tomkins this year, but give him a chance.

I think with Shaul a good idea to introduce him to the international arena would be to give him some games on the wing. He's certainly capable and is faster than say Ryan Hall. Also the wing is a good position to learn and observe a teams structures and plays.

Zak has been absolutely dour this year although I'm not sure whether this is more to do with being disinterested in playing for Leeds as it is about his actual ability. He should still get in the squad I'd think, even if not at FB.

Shaul is a fullback. Ok in fielding direct bombs but teams would target him heavily if he was on the wing. I agree he warrants a call up though.

[Hvy wg]

I'd love to see Jamie Shaul. 

The most exciting prospect for the FB role but I also love Lomax. 

Shaul or Lomax, I'd be satisfied with both. Tomkins or Hardaker would make me sad.

[Hvy wg]

My other issue with Shaul is that I'd have Williams at 6 as he's very difficult to leave out when you consider his form this year, especially in comparison to Widdop's. Williams' strength is his running so you'd expect the Aussie/NZ defence to compress pretty tightly. Lomax out the back threatens the space more effectively because he's much more capable of hitting a long ball to Manfredi/McGilvary. 

On another hand, England's pack is huge and Shaul would have the space he needs to be very dangerous. 

 

[Lowdesert]

Shaul has been playing on the back of arguably the biggest pack in Super League this year, while Lomax has returned from injury, played bits on the wing for his first few games (with reduced involvement as a result) and has been in a pretty ordinary team. Here's how his Shaul's stats compare with Lomax 

Tries per game: 0.65 for Shaul, 0.8 for Lomax

Try assists per game: 0.3 for Shaul, 0.6 for Lomax

Tackle busts per game: 4 for Shaul, 2 for Lomax

Clean breaks per game: 0.8 for Shaul, 0.6 for Lomax. 

 

Given the size of Hull's pack hasn't resulted in Shaul's attacking stats being way ahead of Lomax's, I'm not sure we can make the argument that England's would either.

Has Shaul played more games than Lomax? If he has, then his stats are diluted and should be presented pro rata.

Great player as I would like Lomax to be, his injury record would make me uncomfortable with selecting him now. Maybe different at the end of the '8's.

[Hvy wg]

Shaul has been playing on the back of arguably the biggest pack in Super League this year, while Lomax has returned from injury, played bits on the wing for his first few games (with reduced involvement as a result) and has been in a pretty ordinary team. Here's how his Shaul's stats compare with Lomax 

Tries per game: 0.65 for Shaul, 0.8 for Lomax

Try assists per game: 0.3 for Shaul, 0.6 for Lomax

Tackle busts per game: 4 for Shaul, 2 for Lomax

Clean breaks per game: 0.8 for Shaul, 0.6 for Lomax. 

 

Given the size of Hull's pack hasn't resulted in Shaul's attacking stats being way ahead of Lomax's, I'm not sure we can make the argument that England's would either. 

Lomax 10 games, Shaul 20 games.

Lomax in 10 games => 631 meters, 20 tackle busts

Shaul in 20 games => 2354 meters, 79 tackle busts

 

[Lowdesert]

Lomax 10 games, Shaul 20 games.

Lomax in 10 games => 631 meters, 20 tackle busts

Shaul in 20 games => 2354 meters, 79 tackle busts

So, roughly, for those two stats, Shaul is nearly twice as effective as Lomax.

You cannot replace speed.

[Tonka]

Tomkins needs to adapt or die.  I see him as a 6 if he changes his game to focus on distribution and kicking rather than broken play running which was his speciality from full back.  He still has enough pace to do damage as a runner, but it can't be his main strength. 

[Davc1h]

Totally agree Dave re halfbacks, I was totally aghast at Luke Gale's non selection last year he was the outstanding half of the comp, and that was an Achilles heel of Mac's selections, remember Sinfield and Chase being given the job in '13, 8 month's before the WC when in Feb at the start of the season he said I will pick player's in form.

 

As a Cas fan I get to see Gale every week and he has been brilliant in this Cas team. Unfortunately, I am not convinced his kicking game is international class.