Six Nations: England bring in Saxons pair

England have brought Thomas Waldrom and Matt Banahan into their squad ahead of Saturday's Six Nations opener against Scotland at Murrayfield.

Leicester forward Waldrom and Bath back Banahan replace injured Henry Trinder (ankle) and Luke Narraway (calf).

Waldrom and Banahan played for the Saxons in Saturday's 23-17 win over second-string rivals Irish Wolfhounds.

Waldrom, an injury replacement at the World Cup, scored a second-half try, while Bath's Banahan was on the wing.

England's interim coach Stuart Lancaster will also be without Waldrom's Leicester team-mates Toby Flood (knee) and Manu Tuilagi (calf), as well as Northampton pair Courtney Lawes (knee) and Tom Wood (foot) for the annual Calcutta Cup clash.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/16783174.stm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm surprised at Banahan's selection.

They're going to use him as a centre I would say. Lancaster liked him at 12 when he played there against the Baa Baa's and I think he'll give him another go there during the 6N.

Waldrom went well in the Saxons game, but he's just too inconsistent in the big games for my liking.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Oh, Lord, why? Surely he can't actually play?

If Trinder is injured, that would seem to guarantee Farrell a start, I don't think Lancaster would start Barritt with JTH or Banahan.

With Farrell the back up FH (the only other emergency options being Goode or Barritt), that means a center option will have to be on the bench, so JTH or Banahan. Could well be both, but I'd hope for a more rapier bench option.

Would have been a good chance to get Easter in but nvm

Can't we just use Goode and Sharples on the bench?

not sure i follow your logic there stlowe, for me banahan is now likely to start at 13 outside barritt with farrell on the bench as utility. Lancaster is a known fan of banners and of having a utility on the bench. Gutted for Trinder, really wanted to see him have a run at 13 outside barritt. Haven't been impressed with Farrell there and see him as more of a 12.

I would see Farrell as the back up centre on the bench, despite me not wanting him to play there. With him and Banners on, it gives england a lot of flexibilty, 10-14 covered by 2 players.

Trinder presumably got injured after being released back to Gloucester for the LV cup game. I thought that looked an odd decison.

Still, having seen the Saxons I'm now in favour of playing the Sarries trio as they already know how each other play. We can migrate to a better backline, one player at a time, over the next 12 months but given the number of new combinatiosn around the place let's make use of some relationships which already exist.

Can't say I think Banahan's form justifies an international call up, but Walrom did play well on Saturday.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Can't we just use Goode and Sharples on the bench?

Are you suggesting Goode cover FH if Hodgson go off? I don't think he's played there in over a year.

I think it's almost a given that Farrell would cover FH, so then you'd need someone to cover his spot and Goode/Sharples wouldn't do that effectively.

But he's not a 13. Or, IMO, an international quality player in any position, but especially not at centre. *sulks*

stlowe wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Can't we just use Goode and Sharples on the bench?

Are you suggesting Goode cover FH if Hodgson go off? I don't think he's played there in over a year.

I think it's almost a given that Farrell would cover FH, so then you'd need someone to cover his spot and Goode/Sharples wouldn't do that effectively.

I'd move Farrell across to 10, and put Strettle at 13 and Sharples on the wing. At least Strettle beats people and plays outside the other backs regularly. Or as a last option, Foden at 13 and Goode at 15. Or Goode at 10 over Banahan at 13. Pretty much any option

belovedfrosties wrote:not sure i follow your logic there stlowe, for me banahan is now likely to start at 13 outside barritt with farrell on the bench as utility. Lancaster is a known fan of banners and of having a utility on the bench. Gutted for Trinder, really wanted to see him have a run at 13 outside barritt. Haven't been impressed with Farrell there and see him as more of a 12.

I would see Farrell as the back up centre on the bench, despite me not wanting him to play there. With him and Banners on, it gives england a lot of flexibilty, 10-14 covered by 2 players.

I wanted Trinder to start with Farrell on the bench as well. Given Lancaster's previous comments I really don't see him pairing Barritt & Banahan. I think that would be a poor partnership, plus I can't see Banahan going from not making the EPS from the off, not making it from the first round of injury cover, then starting.

Looks like the going for youth and form players is backsliding.
Let's bring back Bananaman, surely he can't slip up again ha ha.

I can already hear Flower of Scotland ringing in victory. Another niggle to a back and Tindle will be playing! Tindle and Bananaman centre combo. That's the future

Seriously though ------ why is Banahan an option given the players like Farrel, Strettle, Barritt, Sharples etc you've got available?

ChequeredJersey wrote:

stlowe wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Can't we just use Goode and Sharples on the bench?

Are you suggesting Goode cover FH if Hodgson go off? I don't think he's played there in over a year.

I think it's almost a given that Farrell would cover FH, so then you'd need someone to cover his spot and Goode/Sharples wouldn't do that effectively.

I'd move Farrell across to 10, and put Strettle at 13 and Sharples on the wing. At least Strettle beats people and plays outside the other backs regularly. Or as a last option, Foden at 13 and Goode at 15. Or Goode at 10 over Banahan at 13. Pretty much any option

I think Strettle or Foden at centre (a position they have no recent practice or real experience in) in a high pressure match at Murrayfield would be a recipe for disaster. I'd be very surprised if Lancaster didn't have a more practiced centre option on the bench. Although a specialist IC, I'd go for JTH.

Incidentally, I don't think Strettle will start over Sharples.

Waldroum strengthens the squad for me.

Disappointed Trinder is crocked & a shame Hopper & 12Ts had poor games for Saxoons - they will be kicking themselves.

Midfield maybe a bit stodgy now.

They should be ditching Botha and bringing Garvey into the first team as far as im concerned!

[quote="stlowe"][quote="ChequeredJersey"][quote="stlowe"]

ChequeredJersey wrote:

I think Strettle or Foden at centre (a position they have no recent practice or real experience in) in a high pressure match at Murrayfield would be a recipe for disaster. I'd be very surprised if Lancaster didn't have a more practiced centre option on the bench. Although a specialist IC, I'd go for JTH.

Incidentally, I don't think Strettle will start over Sharples.

I'm not saying it's ideal I just think it's a less bad idea than playing Banahan who also isn't a centre and doesn't have proven class or form. You may be right about Sharples and Strettle. I'd start Strettle as he has played (well) for England in the past and plays outside the probable 10, 12 and maybe 13 with no Trinder

Trinders out as well? Me oh my.

Thats a huge problem at 13 now. if he cant play. Maybe theyw ill just go with the "Saracens 3", surely not Banahan? Apparently he was his usual largely ineffective self in the Wolfhounds game.

The number 8's options are getting silly too. Its rather embaressing that Waldrom has been called up when Easter has been put into exile.
Looks liek Morgan is nailed on for that start, I guess Dowson will be good for a bench spot. Reports have it that Robshaws Capatin, youd assume playing 7 alongside Croft at 6.

We can now blame injuries for Englands abject performnace

Don't we do that anyway?

[quote="ChequeredJersey"][quote="stlowe"][quote="ChequeredJersey"]

stlowe wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

I think Strettle or Foden at centre (a position they have no recent practice or real experience in) in a high pressure match at Murrayfield would be a recipe for disaster. I'd be very surprised if Lancaster didn't have a more practiced centre option on the bench. Although a specialist IC, I'd go for JTH.

Incidentally, I don't think Strettle will start over Sharples.

I'm not saying it's ideal I just think it's a less bad idea than playing Banahan who also isn't a centre and doesn't have proven class or form. You may be right about Sharples and Strettle. I'd start Strettle as he has played (well) for England in the past and plays outside the probable 10, 12 and maybe 13 with no Trinder

Whats Strettles kicking like? Given Ashton doesnt have a kicking game Id want a second option in the back 3. Also Lancaster had a hissy fit over Sharples not making the world cup squad, he obviously loves him.
Picking the Saracens backline would have some advantages but is pretty negative, and would suggest Farrells influence over Lancaster whos tended toward a flashier more expansive style in the past.
I dont have a problem witH England taking a pragmatic approach to this game ( even more so swith the injuries) but youd like to think that England could put together a more threatening backs division than a club who struggle to score tries despite dominanting posession and teritory.

It's a shame that young Jonathan Joseph didn't time his comeback a couple of weeks back. He made a real impact coming on against Edinburgh in the HC and looks a great player.

Calling up Banahan at centre is a mistake. Barritt and JT-H are already in the squad, and neither will be able to form a good partnership with Banahan. It'll just be Hape and Tindall all over again. Too similar and predictable.

Hopper would have been a better selection, and I think more useful to the squad.

Presumably Hodgson, Barritt and Farrell are pretty much guaranteed to start now.

It's not ideal but looks like the 10,12 and 13 will be Hodgson,Barritt and Farrell.

I just hope they don't get too much of a pasting on these boards after the game. By the way I have always said I would prefer Tuilagi or Trinder instead of Farrell at 13 but with them out......

Billy Bunter and BananaMan ? Really England ?, 12 Premiership rugby clubs and thats the best you can pick ?

This does worry me I must say. I like Lancaster and I like that he's been talking about a free flowing game, putting pace into it and using some of the great backs we have available to us.

What concerns me is that the selection isn't backing up the PR. Firstly, he had no recognised 13 in the EPS after Manu's injury, calling up Trinder which was a great choice. The problem being however, if he always intended to have Trinder in the EPS or indeed start him in the Scotland game, why release him back to Gloucester over the weekend? He isn't short of match fitness.

This points to his decision always being to select the Sarries midfield. Now any international coach will tell you that that is not an international standard midfield. Farrell is a 12, and played at 13 for his goal kicking and development by Sarries. Where is the pace and incisiveness going to come from?

Now, with his calling up of Banners it seems he's reverting to the double crash ball combination. As has been said we will see Banners on the bench as a utility, to cover centre and wing. He was fairly poor in the Saxons game on the wing, and Lancaster loves him at centre. Should he be starting there for England though? Moreover, if your philosophy is as stated above shouldn't he have called up someone like Jonathan Joseph? Hopper pretty much excluded himself with his relatively average performance for the Saxons.

Chjw131 wrote:This does worry me I must say. I like Lancaster and I like that he's been talking about a free flowing game, putting pace into it and using some of the great backs we have available to us.

What concerns me is that the selection isn't backing up the PR. Firstly, he had no recognised 13 in the EPS after Manu's injury, calling up Trinder which was a great choice. The problem being however, if he always intended to have Trinder in the EPS or indeed start him in the Scotland game, why release him back to Gloucester over the weekend? He isn't short of match fitness.

This points to his decision always being to select the Sarries midfield. Now any international coach will tell you that that is not an international standard midfield. Farrell is a 12, and played at 13 for his goal kicking and development by Sarries. Where is the pace and incisiveness going to come from?

Now, with his calling up of Banners it seems he's reverting to the double crash ball combination. As has been said we will see Banners on the bench as a utility, to cover centre and wing. He was fairly poor in the Saxons game on the wing, and Lancaster loves him at centre. Should he be starting there for England though? Moreover, if your philosophy is as stated above shouldn't he have called up someone like Jonathan Joseph? Hopper pretty much excluded himself with his relatively average performance for the Saxons.

The players you talk of are being called up into the EPS, not the match day squad. It might be just cover.

munkian wrote:Billy Bunter and BananaMan ? Really England ?, 12 Premiership rugby clubs and thats the best you can pick ?

No

but with 4 number 8s ahead of Waldrom The Hutt injured or unavilable ( one through the coaches choice) hes become the 4th option in the squad, so you could argue hes the 8th best Lancaster could pick. Although Jordan Crane is injured as well, so maybe 9th. Some might have Guest in there as well.
But the point is hes far form first choice.
Im wondering who the 8th choice Welsh Irish and Scottish number 8s would be? ( Now Wales cant have Morgan...)

Same with Bahanananan too. Hes got in as a last minute reserve partly because of his experience, its much easier for chaps like these two to step in and perform than some random kid from outside the system.
There is a lack of genuine 13s with sufficent experience in England though. Part of the problem was a generation who woudl have been in the "50 cap cavalry" now sugffering serious injury problems and/or personal issues. One of JSD, Hipkiss, Tait, Smith surely wouldve made the grade otherwise to fill this problem position.
When youre next two wonderkids in line then get injured you start to wonder if Greenwood was onto something avoiding the 13 shirt. Theres other kids coming through as well but I guess for his squad Lancaster sees the big lump as his reserve bench player to cover 13 and wing in the short term ratehr than a very raw talent. Maybe as pointed out by someone else Joseph woulve got called up ahead of him as well if hed been fit sooner.

Anyway no, these are not the best to EQ players in the Jeff, they are just the last men standing.

I see what you're saying in terms of availability PSW, but it's still a confusion of publicised playing aspirations and selection for my liking. If you want to play the attacking open game, surely you don't pick Farrell at 13 for a kick off. Then, you don't select Banners as the only other 13 option (somewhere Geech said he really shouldn't play - but should be at 12)?

I would have thought that selecting someone like JSD would've been a better bet given that he covers all the positions Banners does and would be a better option by far at 13.

Should Thomas Waldrom be disqualified from England eligibility on the basis that he played for the New Zealand Maori in a year when NZ did not field a NZ A team?

http://www.rugbydump.com/2008/07/602/nz-maori-snatch-pacific-nations-cup-from-australia-a

If he played against Australia-A who are Australia's nominated second team, in a year where the Maori replaced New Zealand A for the entire international season, then surely by a recent precedent he should be committed to NZ for all eternity?

I say this in the spirit of fairness, rather than just because I don't want to see him play for England.

Apparently Barritt is a good passer when he is asked to play that role (from his time in the S14) and Stretters is a very attacking winger and Hodgson at Sale was an attack-minded FH so just because Sarries players are picked as a back-line doesn't mean that they will play the Sarries way (though if that gets the same results as it does for them then I'll take it!). Also Strettle has definitely played 13 for Sarries and Quins and I remember there being talk about being moved there for England a few years ago before he got injured, so I stick to my idea of having him cover 13 not Banahan

Who is to say Banahan will start? Its just training squad cover and he isn't in the best form and was mediocre on the weekend. He offers versatility of course, so might be a bench option, but can't see past the Hodsgson farrell Barritt axis to be honest. Can't stand all these ideas of playing people out of position, Strettle and Foden have both been playing well at wing and FB respectively, so keep them there

Youngs
Hodgson
Ashton
Barritt
Farrell
Strettle
Foden

Dickson
??
Goode

If you want versatility go for Banahan, but I wouldn't, seems incredibly harsh to leave out Sharples

miteyironpaw wrote:Should Thomas Waldrom be disqualified from England eligibility on the basis that he played for the New Zealand Maori in a year when NZ did not field a NZ A team?

http://www.rugbydump.com/2008/07/602/nz-maori-snatch-pacific-nations-cup-from-australia-a

If he played against Australia-A who are Australia's nominated second team, in a year where the Maori replaced New Zealand A for the entire international season, then surely by a recent precedent he should be committed to NZ for all eternity?

I say this in the spirit of fairness, rather than just because I don't want to see him play for England.

There no cas ethat is excludes him, because they werent specified as the A team and the players werent told they would be tied to New Zealand. The rules pertaining to the Shingler case post date that game anyway.

As to whether it SHOULD exclude him whether that was the A team or not is another matter., Amybe his lack of Maori heritage shouldve excluded him form that game. But whatever. Its a non issue as far as the regulations are concerned.

Just get Jonny May in there pronto, sorted

I'm not saying Banners will start, we know he won't given his late call up. What I am saying is the playing style may be a touch adrift from the 'aspirations'. And frankly I don't want to see England adopt a Sarries style of play, otherwise I may wander out into the woods and do the decent thing.

I have an inckling Sharples will start, but where that leaves Strettle I don't know. He may bench him instead of Banners or as well as. I think we'll see this:

9. B Youngs
10. C Hodgson
11. C Sharples
12. B Barritt
13. O Farrell
14. C Ashton
15. B Foden

20. L Dickson
21. M Banahan
22. D Strettle

Not what I would pick, but what I think will be selected. Farrell and Barritt covering FH, Sharples covering FB etc..

chjw131 I personally think Sharples will be on the bench with Strettle starting.

Strettle to start because of his fellow club mates plus he has international caps already.

Sharples on the bench because he can cover more positions.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:Should Thomas Waldrom be disqualified from England eligibility on the basis that he played for the New Zealand Maori in a year when NZ did not field a NZ A team?

http://www.rugbydump.com/2008/07/602/nz-maori-snatch-pacific-nations-cup-from-australia-a

If he played against Australia-A who are Australia's nominated second team, in a year where the Maori replaced New Zealand A for the entire international season, then surely by a recent precedent he should be committed to NZ for all eternity?

I say this in the spirit of fairness, rather than just because I don't want to see him play for England.

There no cas ethat is excludes him, because they werent specified as the A team and the players werent told they would be tied to New Zealand. The rules pertaining to the Shingler case post date that game anyway.

As to whether it SHOULD exclude him whether that was the A team or not is another matter., Amybe his lack of Maori heritage shouldve excluded him form that game. But whatever. Its a non issue as far as the regulations are concerned.

You have to be 1/8, or is it 1/16th Maori to play, and both Waldrom brothers have done so, so I don't think there's any lack of heritage going on there. The fact is that NZ didn't have an A team that year and the Maori were fielded as a proxy. I don't see the difference. It's one rule for one and another rule for the other.

england have the likes of joseph lowe they should be in ahead of banahan he is useless

Lowe is injured isn't he?

Chjw131 wrote:What I am saying is the playing style may be a touch adrift from the 'aspirations'. And frankly I don't want to see England adopt a Sarries style of play, otherwise I may wander out into the woods and do the decent thing.

For this game though I dont knwo if thats really a bad thing.
Do you think its a good idea to try the fancy free flowing complex back moves and slick hands on a wet cold wintry day in Scotland with a bunch of raw players who only met a coupel of weeks ago?
Or accept that a mixture of injuries and " wrong time wrong place" means the Sarcens kick and pressure game may be better. Id certainly fancy seeing Hodgson and Farrel engange Scotland in a tactical kicking duel then have Foden and his chums counter attck with the ball in hand. In previous years England have been guilty of playing against their strengths with Scotland, this year this may be their only option...a touch of pragmatism and then uitilise Hodgsons passing and Barrits running when the opportunities arise.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:What I am saying is the playing style may be a touch adrift from the 'aspirations'. And frankly I don't want to see England adopt a Sarries style of play, otherwise I may wander out into the woods and do the decent thing.

For this game though I dont knwo if thats really a bad thing.
Do you think its a good idea to try the fancy free flowing complex back moves and slick hands on a wet cold wintry day in Scotland with a bunch of raw players who only met a coupel of weeks ago?
Or accept that a mixture of injuries and " wrong time wrong place" means the Sarcens kick and pressure game may be better. Id certainly fancy seeing Hodgson and Farrel engange Scotland in a tactical kicking duel then have Foden and his chums counter attck with the ball in hand. In previous years England have been guilty of playing against their strengths with Scotland, this year this may be their only option...a touch of pragmatism and then uitilise Hodgsons passing and Barrits running when the opportunities arise.

Does that gameplan necessitate the use of Banahan though?

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:What I am saying is the playing style may be a touch adrift from the 'aspirations'. And frankly I don't want to see England adopt a Sarries style of play, otherwise I may wander out into the woods and do the decent thing.

For this game though I dont knwo if thats really a bad thing.
Do you think its a good idea to try the fancy free flowing complex back moves and slick hands on a wet cold wintry day in Scotland with a bunch of raw players who only met a coupel of weeks ago?
Or accept that a mixture of injuries and " wrong time wrong place" means the Sarcens kick and pressure game may be better. Id certainly fancy seeing Hodgson and Farrel engange Scotland in a tactical kicking duel then have Foden and his chums counter attck with the ball in hand. In previous years England have been guilty of playing against their strengths with Scotland, this year this may be their only option...a touch of pragmatism and then uitilise Hodgsons passing and Barrits running when the opportunities arise.

Does that gameplan necessitate the use of Banahan though?

No which is why he'd be on the bench if in the matchday squad at all.
I think most of us are assuming that Farell will start with Barrit in the centers. Although Banahan would be more of a direct replacement for Tuilagi who was plan A...
Anyway Id be happier with the Saracens plan than trying to chuck it around like a hot potato with Banahan in the side.

Theres still a lot of uncertainty about who Lancaster will pick for the matchday sqaud. The injuries are adding to that.

No PSW I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing for this particular game. As I said consistently a few weeks ago, at Murrayfield in wind/rain etc... a tactical forward approach would be the most pragmatic option. This was said prior to the EPS announcement, and actually as a few others have stated we don't really have the pack to play that game properly at the moment.

Thus my attacking aspirations come back to the fore and as Lancaster has himself pointed out, he wants to play that style of game. My main point being that HE isn't following it through very well.

If you were going to pick the more pragmatic approach you'd need a team something like this:

1. N Wood (A Sheridan if fit)
2. D Hartley
3. D Cole
4. M Garvey
5. M Botha
6. C Robshaw
7. T Wood
8. N Easter
9. B Youngs
10. C Hodgson (although his tactical kicking isn't quite top drawer)
11. M Cueto
12. M Banahan
13. B Barritt
14. D Strettle
15. M Brown

16. R Webber
17. M Mullan
18. M Stevens
19. S Shaw
20. B Morgan
21. P Hodgson
22. O Farrell

adambarney wrote:england have the likes of joseph lowe they should be in ahead of banahan he is useless

Lowe has been injured since October. This weekend was Joseph's first game back after also having been injured since October.

from reading a few other articles doing the rounds it sounds like Farrell will start at 12 with Barritt at 13. This to me sounds ridiculous, Barritt is a 12 he plays there week in week out, why move him to 13? I thought the whole point of playing the sarries backline together was for continuity and familiarity? Moving them around seems to negate this, i sincerely hope im wrong though.

Would like to see Sharples start personally, think he will be a great player in the mould of JSD, hopefully he might get a few caps more though!

beloved, Barritt wears 12 and is seen as such; but he and Farrell regularly alternate between first and second receiver so it's not really a huge shift to play him with a 13 on his back.

Thanks for the info chjw131, people always refer to him as a specialist 12, hence my confusion. Been pretty unfortunate with injuries, though the decision to send trinder away was baffling imo, the only specialist in the eps not injured now getting crocked in a pointless game. Hope Tuilagi recovers soon enough, despite his inexperience i think the team will really depend on him. Would work very well with Hodgsons flat passes on the gain line.

Chjw131 wrote:beloved, Barritt wears 12 and is seen as such; but he and Farrell regularly alternate between first and second receiver so it's not really a huge shift to play him with a 13 on his back.

This often gets said (particularly on SKY by Barnes), but Barritt plays the inside channel the vast majority of the time and certainly in their more effective moments.

Chjw131 wrote:
Thus my attacking aspirations come back to the fore and as Lancaster has himself pointed out, he wants to play that style of game. My main point being that HE isn't following it through very well.

I replace the end of that with "cant see that through due to the mounting injuries"

stlowe wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:beloved, Barritt wears 12 and is seen as such; but he and Farrell regularly alternate between first and second receiver so it's not really a huge shift to play him with a 13 on his back.

This often gets said (particularly on SKY by Barnes), but Barritt plays the inside channel the vast majority of the time and certainly in their more effective moments.

Yes stlowe it often 'gets said' because it is true and that is how they operate. Indeed, I think you'll find Barritt referring to it himself in The Rugby Paper. You're quite right that he tends to be most effective on the inside channel, as he uses his power to take the ball on from deep that's why he is seen generally as a 12, as I stated.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:
Thus my attacking aspirations come back to the fore and as Lancaster has himself pointed out, he wants to play that style of game. My main point being that HE isn't following it through very well.

I replace the end of that with "cant see that through due to the mounting injuries"

But he could see it through. Also, his starting midfield from the start was likely to be what he will sill start with. That's something which doesn't fit that well with his vision.