England Second Rows for the EPS

First topic message reminder :

With the fairly poor show that was the world cup now over, and the RFU's policy coming into play regarding picking only home based players, what do you all think of the second row situation for the upcoming EPS? My concern is that international experience and/or talent in the engine room is looking a bit thin. That's not to mention the hooker situation with Thommo's retirement.

So far if we accept that Palmer and Shaw are now over and out, we are only left with Deacon and Lawes making up the second row situation. I believe there needs to be four in the EPS? I've never been a great fan of Deacon although his Six Nations was pretty reasonable; Lawes always looks like he'll make a superb player but is still in need of some refining; then who...?

The Options:

Botha - As close as a like for like replacement for Shaw as there is, but to my mind not quite of international standard and we're back to the old EQ debate again.

Skivington - Hasn't been playing badly for Tigers since back from injury but again is he really up to the required level? Good lineout forward though.

Borthwick - A serious regression if he's included in my opinion, excellent lineout but as effective going forward as the proverbial paper bag.

Parling - Injured currently, perhaps serious, but has looked excellent since coming back at the start of the season. He is though 28 now and is he really an option to take us through to the world cup?

Kitchener - Is he injured? Made a few appearances for Tigers at the start of the season and didn't impress Cockerill certainly.

Kennedy - Again good lineout forward, some questionmarks over his work around the field, not a great carrier.

Attwood - Looked better each week at Bath and scored a great try against London Irish in the Jeff. Does he do enough of the grunt though?

Anyone else lurking around, any young talent coming through the ranks? Savage at Gloucester, but he is young. Be interesting to know what everyone thinks as to this key element of England's future.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

and to throw a cat amonst the pidgeons, whatever happened to christian day? phenominal last season i thought..

Injured.

isn't there something about extra money for EPS players playing for their clubs in their international position?

Don't know. There was something written into the agreement so that the England management could request clubs to play the internationals in the positions preferred by England. Hence Hape playing 12 and Barkley playing 13 for some of last season.

Really?

Are you not getting confussed by the clause that allowed players to be booted out of the EPS if they were being played out of the bnamed position? It would make soem sense to have an agreement like the one you mention though to avoid another Farrell situation.

I think one problem is conservatism in English rugby. I think now with Martin Johnson and his managing team gone some green shoots can grow.

We need to throw in the likes of Garvey,Robson now in my opinion.

What's the point of waiting till they are 27-28?

Relying on the old guard like Deacon and Palmer is backward thinking in my opinion.

I would like to see a Lawes-Robson/Garvey partnership in the 6 nations with either Robson/Garvey on the bench.

A team like this would be great in the 6 nations.

1.Corbsisiero
2.Hartley
3.Cole
4.Lawes
5.Robson
6.Robshaw
7.Wood
8.Easter
9.Youngs
10.Flood
11.Sharples
12.Barritt
13.Tuilagi
14.Ashton
15.Foden

Easter needs to be phased out but not yet.

I too think throwing Garvey right in now would be a great idea. He's got the necessary size and grunt to partner the lighter Lawes. I think they could be a formidable partnership. Garvey is a mammoth of a man, and Lawes will provide the more athletic/agile aspects.
Additionally, Attwood should be bled through too, asap. I really like Palmer, and maybe he could be kept around to provide experience, but I agree with beshocked, why wait years for a player to fully flourish in the prem before capping them? Perfect example is O'Connor with Australia.

England have always been too conservative.

Like everything about that side but the engine room Beshocked, just lacks that carrying/physicallity ability for me

bluestonevedder wrote: why wait years for a player to fully flourish in the prem before capping them? Perfect example is O'Connor with Australia.

And a perfect bad example is Tait

Did anyone notice our own captains man of the match performance against Toulon last night...Mr Hudson was outstanding....yes he's 30...but quality...

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote: why wait years for a player to fully flourish in the prem before capping them? Perfect example is O'Connor with Australia.

And a perfect bad example is Tait

But at least the risk was taken. Wales have done it as well; capping North was a brilliant move, Halfpenny also. All the young names coming through in fact. What's the point in waiting for a few years as a precaution, when they could be gaining experience from being in the setup?
I'm not promoting just throwing these players onto the field, but at least get them around the EPS. They need nurturing but also the experience.
England have been terrible at this!

Hudson would be a decent shout too, he was a mighty fine player at Irish, but stuck behind Casey and Kennedy. Haven't really followed his Newcastle days, but if he's doing well still he shouldn't be too far away.

Its true, they shouldve picked Youngs and Tuilagi by now for a start. Its also a disgrace that they didnt invite Marler to training sessions. The likes of Sharples should have had a chance to train and play. And what about Simposn?
They certainly waited far too long to give Cipriani a chance, all this talk of him having falws in his game how would we know unless hes given a chance.

etc etc etc

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Its true, they shouldve picked Youngs and Tuilagi by now for a start. Its also a disgrace that they didnt invite Marler to training sessions. The likes of Sharples should have had a chance to train and play. And what about Simposn?
They certainly waited far too long to give Cipriani a chance, all this talk of him having falws in his game how would we know unless hes given a chance.

etc etc etc

Point well made in a non-condescending way, thanks. I'm completely advocating what Wales have done, it's worked very well for them. Most of your rising stars were brought in at a young age. Many of the young English players were brought in out of necessity, rather than form. Simpson had no game time at the WC, Sharples played about 10mins against Wales, and Cipriani should have been nurtured more by Johnson instead of tossed aside.

Im just sick of hearing the smae mantra about how england doesnt give young players a chance when it simply isnt true.
How did Wales get on with Biggar?
England have a lot of players to pick from, its inevtiable some of those wont be slected. Unlike Wales they do have a Saxons side.

Biggar is one example! There are loads of successes to counter that! I think you'll find a lot of England fans find that we are a bad nation at blooding young talent. Consistently picking players such as Moody, Easter, Deacon, Tindall, Cueto, Banahan, Hape, etc etc.
At the present moment in time, i'm of awe of the coaching system that Wales have in place- they've managed to successfully nurture young, inexperienced players from region to international. It's great stuff.

Peter seabiscuit wheeler England do give young players a chance but not enough. Also some players are left on the sidelines for too long like Robshaw and Barritt.

I do not believe that the Welsh players are better than the English ones. I just think they are given more opportunities and looked after better.

The likes of Lydiate,Warburton,Faletau,North just get thrown into the Welsh side with no worries whereas some people on here want to keep Deacon and Palmer!

Also the way England players are treated is bizarre e.g. Tait,Cipriani, Banahan (is he a centre? a winger? a 2nd row?

Also the Flood experiment at centre. Monye at FB etc.

bluestonevedder agree.

Flood was hardly an experiment at center, he spent most of his early caps there.

Perfect Welsh examples Beshocked!

Going back to the second rows England took....you conviently pass over Lawes , and ignore that Attwood was given a chance but couldnt stop stamnping on people so they had to take Deacon instead. Parling also had been in the frame, but has been blighted by injuries. Blaze too was being groomed through the Saxons and may have been in with a chance, till he had to retire.

People also wang on about Noon and Tindall at 13...why did we get stuck with them for so long?
Go have a look at the medical history of Tait, JSD, Ollie Smith and Hipkiss any of who could easily have been seaosned world class internationals with over 50 caps going into the last world cup had it not been for their careers being blighted by injury (slightly different in ollies case). Theres not a lot England could do about that, its not like they were passed over.


The idea that young players are ignored by England is a myth.

Erm...funny how Wales are picked up for blooding kids blah blah...

They only took that stance through the last 6n...and before that they constantly picked Jones, Powell, Jones...etc etc...the same type of plodders that England are getting slated for, for picking.

I dont buy into just throwing kids into the pot....i want to see the BEST on form players in there...now if that happens to be someone like Wade on the wing....and he is performing in the league and Europe...then put him in...but give him time...dont just drop him if he has a bad game...

Likewise if we are stuggling in a position...such as second row...and someone like Hudson...(there are others) who whilst 30 is playing out of his skin and has captaincy material also...then he needs to be considered.

Common sense im afraid....Win games first then develope the team

And which side is ranked 8th in the world?

Previously it had been the one Jonson packed with youngsters when he first took over.

Sorry biscuit, just don't agree at all.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

I dont buy into just throwing kids into the pot....i want to see the BEST on form players in there...now if that happens to be someone like Wade on the wing....and he is performing in the league and Europe...then put him in...but give him time...dont just drop him if he has a bad game...

This is a great point, and sort of what I mean by the nurturing aspect of the coaching setup. Cipriani's treatment was pretty awful, even though he played poorly.

I actually think Geraghty was treated much worse than Cipriani, although taht was partly because he wasnt a good enough 10 to play FH and not the kind of 12 they were looking for.

The real issue here is that when given a chance not enough English players are ready at 21 to make a real impact at international level.
Or at 27.
Or 31.

Peter seabiscuit wheeler Wales reached the semi finals of the world cup playing excellent rugby.England in comparison played mind numbing rugby and crashed out in the quarters to France.

Wales' 8th ranking is distorted.

The youngsters approach worked for Wales in the world cup.

Do you think that the likes of Moody,Tindall and Wilkinson had excellent world cups?

Also I am talking about now not the past.

I agree Geordiefalcon it is common sense indeed. As I said before if there two players of similar ability and form I would pick the youngster. Consequently I would pick Garvey or Robson not Hudson. Is Hudson the standout lock in the AP? No.

England have a lot of young English talent on display now. Let's make sure they are picked.

Please no Deacon or Palmer.

"I agree Geordiefalcon it is common sense indeed. As I said before if there two players of similar ability and form I would pick the youngster. Consequently I would pick Garvey or Robson not Hudson. Is Hudson the standout lock in the AP? No."

Hudson was just an example to prove my point...due to my Falcons bias...and whilst he is not THE stand out lock in the AP (he is playing exceptionally well though)...can you tell me who is...i dont think anyone is putting their hand up for that...

Garvey for me has been very good (at least) in every match, but maybe that's my LI bias shining through. I do think he's just the type of lock England needs though, his work in the loose is excellent, always makes the hard yards.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

"I agree Geordiefalcon it is common sense indeed. As I said before if there two players of similar ability and form I would pick the youngster. Consequently I would pick Garvey or Robson not Hudson. Is Hudson the standout lock in the AP? No."

Hudson was just an example to prove my point...due to my Falcons bias...and whilst he is not THE stand out lock in the AP (he is playing exceptionally well though)...can you tell me who is...i dont think anyone is putting their hand up for that...

Garvey and Robson are.

or possibly not just my LI bias then, if beshocked is agreeing with me

I agree with you too Mad for Chelsea. Garvey is just what England need to partner Lawes

GeordieFalcon wrote:

"I agree Geordiefalcon it is common sense indeed. As I said before if there two players of similar ability and form I would pick the youngster. Consequently I would pick Garvey or Robson not Hudson. Is Hudson the standout lock in the AP? No."

Hudson was just an example to prove my point...due to my Falcons bias...and whilst he is not THE stand out lock in the AP (he is playing exceptionally well though)...can you tell me who is...i dont think anyone is putting their hand up for that...

Deacon

Mad for Chelsea I thought Garvey was your best player against Saracens followed by the big London Irish no 8.

I get quite wound up about this 'young players' thing.
Why should we have a constant obsession with playing all the youngsters?

I fully appreciate that if you can unearth an amazing world class talent, who can perform at international level at 18, then you'll possibly have that player for 12-14 years in the international side.

However, the natural conclusion of always picking young talent is that this years youngster is next years old man.
If you're only going to us each player for 3-4 years before looking for the next star youngster, then surely it really doesn't matter whether they're 18 or 28.

As proof of this, I read a post somewhere on here recently (can't find it now) where someone was throwing up names of young scrum halves that should be blooded.... and the justification was that they were younger than Danny Care.
While I may not think Care is the best scrum half we have, he's only 24.
It's not right to discard someone based purely on age.... especially if they have more top level experience.


Where I do agree with the age argument is when you're looking to cap a player for the first time and their personal skillsets are very similar.
In those circumstances, age will often be a factor.


Overall, what I'm trying to say is that being younger does not necessarily make someone better.

wasps wrote: Overall, what I'm trying to say is that being younger does not necessarily make someone better.

Agree, completely. But it also works the other way too- older does not always mean better.

Wasps there is a different there because Danny Care has caps for England - useful experience.

I said if there are players of equal ability and experience you should always pick the youngster. It is simply common sense.

Is there a relatively old player who you think is being overlooked because of his age?

Best to pick players on form. Do you think the likes of Deacon and Palmer are in good form?

Deacons playing well

beshocked wrote:Wasps there is a different there because Danny Care has caps for England - useful experience.

I said if there are players of equal ability and experience you should always pick the youngster. It is simply common sense.

Is there a relatively old player who you think is being overlooked because of his age?

Maybe not - but what Wasps said was:

As proof of this, I read a post somewhere on here recently (can't find it now) where someone was throwing up names of young scrum halves that should be blooded.... and the justification was that they were younger than Danny Care.

So people are suggesting that that we must look at people younger than Danny Care!!!

Also as to whether we pick people who are in-form. If you always pick the "form" player in each position - and that is a judgement call - you will be making 7-8 changes every match. the job of the international coach is to selct the team that has a best chance of winning. This is a tricky mix of class, experience, skillsets, form, team balance etc etc.
Most coaches are guilty of keeping out-of-form players for too long because they know that when they find teh form they are an asset to the side(and while we praise Gatland, Priestland would not have played 10 in the WC if Jones had not been injured in teh warm-ups before the game against England)

Deacon is holding the Tigers pack together and playing very well at the minute. It is as always a far better Tigers forwards performance when he's on the park. Having said that I bet most non-Tigers fans won't have noticed his influence, which may be a good thing as I'm fed up of England borrowing him only to return him broken. We could do with him through the 6N and for the end of season run in.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Deacons playing well

Yes, yes he is. In that quiet, understated way that gets the job down. He locks out the scrum better than anyone else in the AP, and Tigers lineout has improved. He provides grunt around the park and does the "unseen" stuff really well. However he is unpopular amongst the general rugby watching public. It is right that we should look at introducing younger options in the second Row, but personally I would have at least one older head in the squad. I say older advisedly as Deacon and Palmer are both younger than Shaw was 4 years ago.

For me Garvey has to the first lock on the team sheet.

DaveM wrote:For me Garvey has to the first lock on the team sheet.

I'm a big fan. He's certainly been the best performing/ most effective English lock I've seen this weekend, the lad always makes metres. What worries me is Farrell... Is he going to push for a call up for his club captain Borthwick?

It would be Rowntree's call I'd have thought. Given the mess Garvey made of Borthwick and Botha (two decent club-level locks) I'd be amazed if anyone would make that backward step.

Yeah, I get that Rowntree has the first call, but I worry Farrell will be in his ear about it. I'd be amazed too, but I've been amazed by selections before!

Must admit I'm seeing nothing from Robson that screams out International class, would be an awful partner for Lawes imo.

Garvey/Lawes has potential!

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Must admit I'm seeing nothing from Robson that screams out International class, would be an awful partner for Lawes imo.

Garvey/Lawes has potential!

With you there matey....

I appreciate the whole pack generally struggled against Toulouse...but Robson just didnt look powerful enough...which is what im looking for from the other SR if (as everyone on here insists) we are playing Lawes.

Thus i'd plump for Deacon...or Garvey (i confess to not seeing a whole load of this lad so cant pass judgement) who ever is playing the better ..and more influential rugby.

Looks like most of us are in agreement. Lawes/Garvey 1st choice 2nd row for England please.

It would appear so....

Well that's sorted then! This management lark is a piece of cake

Everytime i've seen Garvey he plays well. He consistently gets over the gainline and at 19 stone is a proper lump.

I actually thought his work in the loose in terms of tackling etc wasn't particularly great, but it seems most stats and observations by you guys suggests this is also a relative strength. Think he won London Irish's Best Defender award for missing the least tackles last year as well.

We need a bruiser, i can't see that anyone has filled that role yet.

I'd actually be tempted to go wih Robson/Garvey. Lawes form ha seemed poor and it might be a boot up thr rear. Plus i think Robson runs the Quins lineout and we'd need that surely?

Also, Garvey reminds me a little of Bradley Davies (when he's on form). Think we could do with a real effective ball carrier in the 2nd row.

Leave Garvey alone, we don't want him going off away with England. Every one of our players that has done well in recent years and been selected has then come back from international duty looking half the player he was before he went!!!

Ozzy3213 wrote:Leave Garvey alone, we don't want him going off away with England. Every one of our players that has done well in recent years and been selected has then come back from international duty looking half the player he was before he went!!!

That's the England management for you! Same for all clubs!

Well having read the Sunday Times yesterday it's clear that Simon Shaw should play in the 6 Nations

Course if England have Crift and Wood in the backrow we suddenly dont need to worry so much about the 2nd rows being lineout takers.