England team for 6N against Scotland

First topic message reminder :

England play their first match of the Six Nations away to Scotland on the 4th of February, who would you pick? I know there is a lot of water to go under the bridge before then and we don’t even know who will be team manager, but I think there is a space for debate.

Would you like to see a manager pick the same players that have failed in the World Cup? The majority of them helped win England their first 6N crown in 8 years after all.

Would you just throw the results to the wind if a manager came in with a vision and picked a team of youngsters?

Is the result everything? We haven’t won up in Scotland since 2004 (Jeez time flies!), is a win now imperative? After all, momentum can be a good thing. If we win against the Scots we have Italy away and the potential to be top of the table going into the Wales match at Twickenham.

One thing is for sure, new blood needs to be introduced, but who and where?

Keep in mind:

• Jonny Wilkinson, Tom Palmer and James Haskell are playing abroad so aren’t eligible to be picked.

• Andrew Sheridan had more shoulder surgery, ruling him out for six months.

• The age/ injury records of some players like Simon Shaw, Lewis Moody, Nick Easter, Mark Cueto, Louis Deacon, Mike Tindall and Lee Mears.
  

Tomathy

I really think we need to forget the idea of Morgan. The lad is not gonna play for England.

I also think i'd rather go with Wood over Croft at 6. Adds a little bit more power to the breakdown than Croft... (in my opinion)

"tomathy wrote:actually, we all seem to be forgetting that we could be seeing Waldrom at 8"

Not forgetting, ignoring!

As flippant as my response was, Tomathy has a point. We will see Waldrom at 8 if Johnson stays. Almost certainly.

screamingaddabs wrote:As flippant as my response was, Tomathy has a point. We will see Waldrom at 8 if Johnson stays. Almost certainly.

Not necessarily true, he has called up numerous squad players who have not had a look in since.

Any way if we all pretend it isn't true then it must be a lie right?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Tomathy

I really think we need to forget the idea of Morgan. The lad is not gonna play for England.

I also think i'd rather go with Wood over Croft at 6. Adds a little bit more power to the breakdown than Croft... (in my opinion)

I agree here completely with what you say about Wood.

It's a real negative indictment of the coaching team that one of our best players (Croft) at the moment can not or should not be played as the coaches haven't figured out a backrow or tactics to get the best from him.

englandglory4ever wrote:01. Alex Corbisiero

England looked very light in the backs against France. This RWC has showed that most of your backs MUST be big and powerful to compete with the best in the world. Hence my back line selection.

Not sure I agree with that. The only 'big' back NZ have is Ma'a Nonu. Kahui isn't small, but he's not massive. SBW didn't get much game time in light of the superior form of smaller team-mates.

In fact, if you look at the best back divisions in the competition, they aren't bigger than others, just more skillful. Australia reached a semi with a small back division (I can't think any are over 15st) and a pack that wasn't especially dominant.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:01. Alex Corbisiero

England looked very light in the backs against France. This RWC has showed that most of your backs MUST be big and powerful to compete with the best in the world. Hence my back line selection.

Not sure I agree with that. The only 'big' back NZ have is Ma'a Nonu. Kahui isn't small, but he's not massive. SBW didn't get much game time in light of the superior form of smaller team-mates.

In fact, if you look at the best back divisions in the competition, they aren't bigger than others, just more skillful. Australia reached a semi with a small back division (I can't think any are over 15st) and a pack that wasn't especially dominant.

+1 Kahui's a decent sized lump, but Jane, Dagg and Smith aren't

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:01. Alex Corbisiero

England looked very light in the backs against France. This RWC has showed that most of your backs MUST be big and powerful to compete with the best in the world. Hence my back line selection.

Not sure I agree with that. The only 'big' back NZ have is Ma'a Nonu. Kahui isn't small, but he's not massive. SBW didn't get much game time in light of the superior form of smaller team-mates.

In fact, if you look at the best back divisions in the competition, they aren't bigger than others, just more skillful. Australia reached a semi with a small back division (I can't think any are over 15st) and a pack that wasn't especially dominant.

+1 Kahui's a decent sized lump, but Jane, Dagg and Smith aren't

+1, and look at the other finalists - France, hardly all bruisers are they? The fact is, if you can tackle well then It doesn't matter if you're a bit smaller. If you're a stone lighter you're often quicker too!

I dont think its a case of small backs, i think its the same old case with England that has been around for too long now....QUICK BALL....or shall we say lack of it.

The odd game we have had it, we have scored tries and played well...the rugbys worlds arch enemy number one Ashton coming off his wing supporting and scoring tries...etc.

Having said that...a centre of Tuilagi and Barritt, would pose numerous questions to the opposition as they have size and power so can be direct...AND they can play a bit so can creat things.

Having said that...a centre of Tuilagi and Barritt, would pose numerous questions to the opposition as they have size and power so can be direct...AND they can play a bit so can creat things. .

and unlike the bruisers England took to playing (Noon, Tindal, Hape) they actually have a good turn of pace and so can make breaks as well as crash ball.

The fact is, if you can tackle well then It doesn't matter if you're a bit smaller

80% of tackling is about technique and 20% is about power. You get low and you get good leg drive into the tackle, hitting hard with your shoulder and whoever it is will go down. You go high and try to use your arms to wrap and you'll get shrugged off. Simples.

When people talk about size they are talking about attack as much as defence though. Not everyone needs to be massive, but you need enough big ball carriers around to get over the gainline and suck in defenders. If you've got some monsters in the back row it isn't such an issue, but they're a bit wasted hanging around in the backs waiting for the ball.

"If you've got some monsters in the back row it isn't such an issue, but they're a bit wasted hanging around in the backs waiting for the ball"

Yes but we had....

Croft, Moody and Easter in the back row....and either Tindall or Flood....at 12.....frightening...

Completely agree with FormerlySam on the technique point. Two of the best defensive backs of the last decade are BOD and Fourie. Both tackle low, get up quickly and challenge for the ball, almost like auxillary flankers. Their abilities in this regard have nothing at all to do with size and power.

Sure, there's an extent to which being a big bloke helps, especially when big ball carrying forwards get into the backs, but when you consider how effective Wales were in stopping Ferris and SOB (two of the best ball carriers in the business), that was all about technique in the tackle, and little to do with power.

GeordieFalcon wrote:"If you've got some monsters in the back row it isn't such an issue, but they're a bit wasted hanging around in the backs waiting for the ball"

Yes but we had....

Croft, Moody and Easter in the back row....and either Tindall or Flood....at 12.....frightening...

I agree. I was talking more about teams like Ireland. They get away with having pretty small backs largely, I think, because O'Brien, Heaslip and Ferris are around to make the big carries into midfield.

I wasn't suggesting that England could get away with having a small backline now - just the general principle that some teams can if they've got the right forwards.

1. Corbisiero - much better bet here than Stevens, and doesn't give away stupid penalties at rucks either.
2. Hartley - Thompson was probably the better bet for the WC, but won't be there next time around, give Hartley the jersey.
3. Cole - one of the best young props around.
4. Lawes - defo one for the future, has everything that's needed.
5. Deacon - line-out captain, does some good unseen work, adds grunt.
6. Croft - needs to get back to what he was doing well before though.
7. Robshaw - time to give him a go.
8. Easter (capt) - need his experience, and still around for a couple of years. Hope to see Haskell eventually get this shirt though.
9. Youngs - poor WC, but will hopefully come back stronger.
10. Flood - good WC when he played ten, shouldn't play 12 ever again unless it's an emergency.
11. Sharples/Cueto - if Cueto doesn't retire he's still worth his spot IMO. Otherwise let's see what Sharples can do. Other options are Ojo, Strettle, Armitage.
12. Baritt - again, time to see what a genuine IC can do.
13. Tuilagi - fine young player
14. Ashton - though needs to work on defensive positioning.
15. Foden - has done enough to keep the shirt for the time being.

This is going to sound strange, but for long term captaincy I'd be looking at Hartley. It seems to have worked pretty well at Northampton...

It's all about balance overall as a team. I think England certainly had the right players to do make the carries at the RWC but didn't utilise them correctly. The first try against France was ok set up from a quick tap penalty but the forwards hit the ruck and then a series of pops and pick ups saw the forwards attack the fringes at pace and in pods. It worked, the French team were ragged and Foden happily trotted through a decent gap.

The question is why did it take that long before a)the scrummie decided to ignore the insistent Wilko and take a tap over a shot, b)the forwards were utilised in the tight exchanges as opposed to standing in the backs and c)why following the best passage of English play in the tournament (not that there was many to choose from) was the architecht (Youngs) removed?

Does anyone else see Lawes as a potential No. 8. Not sure how good a rugby brain he has to go with his brawn. Of course Mallinder would have to play him there regularly, but there aren't too many other outstanding candidates.

I'd say Narraway, Crane, Easter and Guest would beg to differ.

If anything, England are more at need in the lock department than at number 8.

I'm actually pretty optimistic about the players we have available. The problem appears to be the game plan. We need a plan A, B and C - all well practiced with good leaders on the pitch able to get the team to follow the right plan at the right time.

So, leaders? Right coaches to deliver 3 or more good game plans?

Leaders for the future seem to be Hartley, Croft maybe Youngs?
Coaches right? I think Wells is the one that needs to go. Our backs have looked good when they get good ball, they just haven't had that enough...

Mad for Chelsea, Deacon should never play for England again, and that backrow is still the least impressive of any Tier 1 country. 3 new backrows, a replacement for Deacon and some new coaching staff and, with the rest of the team you suggest, England will be fine.

Right, I'm going to say this just once more for the benfit of the clueless, and put it in capitals as well.

ROBSHAW IS NOT AN OPENSIDE!!!!!

Nuff said.

Herelies the problem Bathmad....

Neither is Wood, Moody, Haskell, etc
And im slowly becoming unconviced with Croft as a 6.

Of those i would say are true 7's "prior to the WC"...
Fourie is not my cup of tea,
Armitage i rated very highly but MJ didnt and he is now in France anyway.
Saul's form was / is rubbish.

So that leaves the new breed?
Wallace is making a name for himself with Quins. Lets see how his form goes.
Im not sure Welch (with us) is an out and out 7.

Are there any others making a name at the moment....

Kvesic at Worcester was brilliant for the U20s in the summer but he could be anything at this stage. Ben Nutley at Northampton is meant to be pretty promising as well.

Ps

I forgot about Dave Seymour who seems to have found some form with Sale...and is Captain.

Kvesic isnt starting for Worcester though is he?

Robshaw if he plays has to be at 6, it's a bonus he could cover 7 at a pinch but we need a proper fetcher.

Either Wallace or Nutley are currently getting game time, Saull would be another but he doesn't start or get much time and his form has dropped off.

If Croft is to play at 6 then we need Lawes at his best for the carries and we need a big dynamic ball carrier at 8, Narroway would be useful.

To be honest the more we talk about it the more it seems that Croft just doesn't fit with the current team structore. He actually strikes me as more of a lock, openside or 8 then a true 6.

Look at Kaino, Ferris, Burger, Dusetoir and they all show case what a 6 needs to be about.

"we need Lawes at his best for the carries "

I think Lawes was hugely dissapointing in the WC. I was really looking for him to shine, but he did nothing. He's not the only one though.

A few of the young pretenders have a big point to prove this season.

Croft is not gonna make 8 i would think. Openside...possibly....i am just beginning to think of Chris Jones of Sale who was caught between SR and back row...but noone ever knew what he was best as.
Croft has much ability..but is it suited to where he is playing at the moment.

We need a big IC with pace...

GeordieFalcon wrote:Kvesic isnt starting for Worcester though is he?

No, Jake Abbott is, he’s been playing pretty well too, doubt he’ll ever make it to international standard, but he is a genuine openside and only 23.

I think it's more a case of adapting our gameplan(s) to suit what we have, rather than finding the talent to do what we want. Pick a team of the best players and then look and see what game plan would be best.

Yes we could do with a good fetcher. We don't have one at the mo so how can we work around that for now? We don't have to copy someone else's style or fit the England stereotype necessarily. Our team is generally quick (apart from Easter) with top quality in the back three. We should find a game plan that makes the best use of these attributes, not do things like bring in someone because they're big and we need someone big, or indeed bring in a "fetcher" because they are a fetcher but their actually not good enough/ ready yet.

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Saul's form was / is rubbish.

I'm waiting for Beshocked to pounce on this. Saull is the best openside in the English game, and just because he warms the bench at Sarries, doesn't mean he's not world class.....so I'm told......

I think Wood has the capability to be an openside, maybe not a natural, but he has the right skill set. The most natural 7 in the English game for some time was Rees. Fingers crossed for his recovery I say. There was a talent.

ROBSHAW IS NOT AN OPENSIDE!!!!!

Despite his best form that season coming in the 7 shirt?

We need a big IC with pace

Brad Barritt who is also in the form of his life.

Deacon should never play for England again

Over the top reaction there but the bigger problem is if you drop Deacon then you need someone to run the lineout and add balast to the set piece. Who you gonna pick?

I'm waiting for Beshocked to pounce on this. Saull is the best openside in the English game, and just because he warms the bench at Sarries, doesn't mean he's not world class

Even Beshocked has accepted Saull's poor form, that just shows you how badly he's currently playing. Which is unfortunate as he won't get a better chance to gain promotion to the England first team.

I totally agree about Wood FES...i think Wood is a crackin 6, and offers more than Croft or Robshaw to be honest.

Imagine the backrow with his skills at 6 then an additional out and out 7.

Put in a hard runner at 8, then it suddenly becomes a very effective unit.

trouble is we don't have a proper specialist open-side. Armitage was one, but didn't do all that great with his limited chances, and for some reason slipped right down the pecking order. Now he's in France and unavailable, so I'd pick Robshaw there (who was very good there last season). Wood on bench.

If not Deacon, then who? Sure he's not the best ball carrier, but he's good at the unseen stuff and does well at the line-out; Where are the better options?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:trouble is we don't have a proper specialist open-side. Armitage was one, but didn't do all that great with his limited chances, and for some reason slipped right down the pecking order. Now he's in France and unavailable, so I'd pick Robshaw there (who was very good there last season). Wood on bench.

If not Deacon, then who? Sure he's not the best ball carrier, but he's good at the unseen stuff and does well at the line-out; Where are the better options?

+1

The problem here is people are saying x or y is not good enough. That's fine if there is someone else who IS good enough. At the moment I don't think there are many people better than those in the squad with perhaps a few exceptions (e.g. Hape) (rememeber the thread is about the next game against Scotland, not the England team in say a year and a half).

We're having the same issues on the Scottish threads. Lots of posters saying how rubbish the incumbent players are, with little thought to the replacements. Either that, or suggestions for completely unproven kids to play, or for players to play positions at international level they never have at any other level of significance.

It's almost as if international rugby occurs in some sort of vacuum, distinct from club rugby.

I think you need to build up your team piece by piece. It is silly to think MJ will just throw a totally new team together.. you need to change a few things gradually. For example, first two players you should bring in should be an inside centre and a second row if Palmer isn't eligible.

Keep a backrow of Croft, Moody (to captain the team as well) and Easter. This should be your backrow for the 6 nations, with Robshaw as an impact sub waiting to replace Croft, and hopefully overtake him. The rest of the backrow can be replaced as the season(s) progress, with Fearns growing into the 8 role and a natural 7 putting his hand up also.

Deacon is also said to be a brilliant scrummaging lock. I remember when Cole made his name with that performance against Wasps a couple of years back he was quite modest about it and deflected a lot of the praise onto Deacon for backing him up.

Yappysnap - I'm struggling to reconcile the idea that we need a proper 'fetcher' with the idea that Croft strikes you as more of an openside than a blindside. I do agree though that our back row needs to be much better at the breakdown. Quins didn't really have a proper openside last year. We played with Fa'asavalu and Robshaw for the business end of the season when we really hit form, and I thought they were incredible in that area, despite neither being what people would usually call a 'fetcher'. I would hardly say no to having a Brussow in our team, but I think the problem spreads wider than just who happens to be wearing 7 on their back.

Lots of people seem to be saying bad things about Croft. Personally I think he is one of our better and more consistent players. He has a bit of an X factor in my eyes, he just doesn't fit with what people expect a back row to conform to I guess.

It isn't so much that there are bad things to say about him, I just think England would benefit more from a player like Robshaw. Croft is a very attack minded flanker but he isn't really playing in a team that plays to his strengths. I don't see what he adds to England really, while I think Robshaw will add a lot.

tomathy wrote:Deacon is also said to be a brilliant scrummaging lock. I remember when Cole made his name with that performance against Wasps a couple of years back he was quite modest about it and deflected a lot of the praise onto Deacon for backing him up.

Yappysnap - I'm struggling to reconcile the idea that we need a proper 'fetcher' with the idea that Croft strikes you as more of an openside than a blindside. I do agree though that our back row needs to be much better at the breakdown. Quins didn't really have a proper openside last year. We played with Fa'asavalu and Robshaw for the business end of the season when we really hit form, and I thought they were incredible in that area, despite neither being what people would usually call a 'fetcher'. I would hardly say no to having a Brussow in our team, but I think the problem spreads wider than just who happens to be wearing 7 on their back.

I agree with some of that but one of Quins biggest weak spots was the breakdown last season, we got round this by either keeping the ball up or flooding it with bodies. Neither of which England seem capable of.

Since Wallace appeared this season we've looked way more secure on our own ball and turned over alot more, it's also given time for Robshaw to link lot more and offload a lot more in games, as well as make some powerful runs ball in hand.

The only reason i say Croft strikes me as a 7 more then 6 is his speed to the breakdown, really he'd be more of a 6.5 like Moody.

Croft is a very attack minded flanker but he isn't really playing in a team that plays to his strengths.

I'd say that was wrong on two levels. Croft has a major advantage in that he is as quick as most backs (if not quicker than a good portion of the England ones) and his pace means he is a top notch sweeper and puts a lot of pressure on the opponents half backs given the opportunity (you try and kick over a 6 foot 7 flanker hurtling towards you). If England were trying to play a broader game and one where the forwards quickly hit the ruck and the ball is kept in play and moved then a flanker of his speed should be ideal.

However, Croft was increasingly found in the thick of it as for one reason and another England struggled at the set piece. If England maintain the same tactics then in theory Croft would still be the perfect choice as long as England can pair him with someone who will do the dog work and allow him to get amongst the opposition. Hence why I'd like to see Robshaw and Croft paired.

Keep a backrow of Croft, Moody (to captain the team as well) and Easter. This should be your backrow for the 6 nations, with Robshaw as an impact sub waiting to replace Croft, and hopefully overtake him

.

Robshaw is less of an impact player and more of a workhorse, the kind of bloke you want on your inside shoulder when the game is hard. I don't think looking for him to over take Croft is a great tactical ploy either as Croft is only 25 and performed better than the other two backrowers you selected in the RWC. Ideally you'd want to find a replacement for one of the vets and successfully pair him with the internationally experienced, dynamic and younger Croft.

"It isn't so much that there are bad things to say about him, I just think England would benefit more from a player like Robshaw. Croft is a very attack minded flanker but he isn't really playing in a team that plays to his strengths. I don't see what he adds to England really, while I think Robshaw will add a lot.."

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Croft is a cracking player, but we just dont have a team that is playing to his strengths, so we are losing out where we could have a player like Robshaw, or Wood (who is better in the close than Croft) or Dowson, or Johnson etc.

But once the team gets sorted with a powerhouse 8, the second rows get going, the centres start creating (tuilagi and Barritt etc) , then Croft can be a potent weapon.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:trouble is we don't have a proper specialist open-side. Armitage was one, but didn't do all that great with his limited chances, and for some reason slipped right down the pecking order. Now he's in France and unavailable, so I'd pick Robshaw there (who was very good there last season). Wood on bench.

If not Deacon, then who? Sure he's not the best ball carrier, but he's good at the unseen stuff and does well at the line-out; Where are the better options?

Armitage was given one chance in Italy, playing in a stodgy side. He was and remains the best 7 available to England by a country mile (Rees' absence aside) with proven ball carrying and stealing ability. However, now he's out of the running by playing in France, we need to look at the next genuine 7s. Unfortunately the cupboard is fairly bare with those like Seymour who have never shown any international class, or untested youngsters.

bathmad wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:trouble is we don't have a proper specialist open-side. Armitage was one, but didn't do all that great with his limited chances, and for some reason slipped right down the pecking order. Now he's in France and unavailable, so I'd pick Robshaw there (who was very good there last season). Wood on bench.

If not Deacon, then who? Sure he's not the best ball carrier, but he's good at the unseen stuff and does well at the line-out; Where are the better options?

Armitage was given one chance in Italy, playing in a stodgy side. He was and remains the best 7 available to England by a country mile (Rees' absence aside) with proven ball carrying and stealing ability. However, now he's out of the running by playing in France, we need to look at the next genuine 7s. Unfortunately the cupboard is fairly bare with those like Seymour who have never shown any international class, or untested youngsters.

I agree. Armitage struggled in his first match, but if memory serves he played pretty well in a couple of tests against Argentina, winning several turnovers/penalties in each, and I would have liked to see him given more of a chance. Glad I'm not the only one on this, thought it was my bias as a LI fan lol. However he's now out of the running. If Rees can get back to form and fitness, I'd pick him, the best English backrow I can remember in recent memory is the Haskell Rees Narraway in NZ a few years ago, where they matce NZ's backrow (pity about the rest of the team...). Any news on Rees and Narraway, are they close to getting back to that sort of level? Narraway could be a good bet for the 8 shirt, no?

Narraway is my shoe-in for No8 and Captain. Bring on the brave new world.

The RFU said players based abroad could be selected in "exceptional circumstances". If Armitage is the only decent option for a fetching openside, then he doesn't have to be out of the running, providing Toulon agree to England's extended training demands.

"Glad I'm not the only one on this, thought it was my bias as a LI fan lol."

Im another one that cant understand how he was never given more games....talented pocket battleship 7, with the pace and handling of a centre...erm hello MJ we need a class openside....and he is one!!!
I think selection issues like these are where MJ falls down...as this is not the only one.

I will be utterly amazed if Rees ever plays again. Awesome player, but just never given the time due to injuries.

6 Haskell
7 Rees
8 Narraway

Yeah they really took to the Kiwis didnt they...imagine if they had stayed fit and on form......if only.

So its Wallace, Nutley or Kvesic ...the 7 position is yours if you are playing out of your skin still by the 6n.....

Nutley has looked a very promising player the couple of games I've seen him in, but he wasn't doing a lot of fetching. Seemed more of a 6.5.

"Seemed more of a 6.5.."

Hawalsh, i think thats where we're struggling at the moment we seem to be producing alot of alrounders and few specialists....

The age old question awaits England, Mould the players into a system or mould the system to the players. Its probably best to change the system for what we have got. Robshaw brings physicality to the back row and could give sides some headaches at the breakdown. A dynamic 8 is essential to go forward ball. If we are there in numbers we will keep the ball better and maybe even generate quick ball. Any fetching turnovers are a bonus lets get the basics right, dynamism, intensity, aggression.