England Squad for Italy

First topic message reminder :


SL has named the same starting squad for Italy this Saturday.

What are your thoughts?

Article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/16962216

The focus on winning everything, with no eye on the future, is what landed us in the sh*t in the first place. I'm not saying that we should deliberately lose, but at the end of the day, we won't be relegated from it if we come unstuck by trying new things. Its a question of priorities.

England need to re-establish a conveyor-belt of talent by which young players get a route into the team. There is a mid way point between making wholesale changes and making none at all. I don't see what can be learned from playing Saracen's entire midfield. That combination should indeed work almost instantly.

For example, Foden is a known quantity, so what would have been wrong with giving Mike Brown a start at 15? I'd like to see what Owen Farrell can do at 10, and the Italian game would seem to be the perfect game to try that in.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

He has already blooded many new players...Morgan, Dowson, Barritt, Farrell, Botha (to a degree), Robshaw....

What is any coach going to find out about a player playing 1 game in the highly passionate 6n then being dropped for ANOTHER new cap!!!???

PS...i also believe we should never use the 6n as a "trial competition" you should be trying to win everything you can.

I agree (though I would have started Brown and maybe Morgan). Did we not criticise Robinson for ditching players after one match?

Spot on CJ......Matt Tait and Anthony Allen spring to mind....

PS Cheers Ruby...

England being unchanged for Italy is surely the right thing to do. The two away games to Scotland and Italy were both winnable and the two games are a good platform to 'build' a team before facing Wales at home.

mawhis wrote:The focus on winning everything, with no eye on the future, is what landed us in the sh*t in the first place. I'm not saying that we should deliberately lose, but at the end of the day, we won't be relegated from it if we come unstuck by trying new things. Its a question of priorities.

England need to re-establish a conveyor-belt of talent by which young players get a route into the team. There is a mid way point between making wholesale changes and making none at all. I don't see what can be learned from playing Saracen's entire midfield. That combination should indeed work almost instantly.

For example, Foden is a known quantity, so what would have been wrong with giving Mike Brown a start at 15? I'd like to see what Owen Farrell can do at 10, and the Italian game would seem to be the perfect game to try that in.

We need some continuity before throwing others in to 'see what they can do'. That is experimenting and any scientist will tell you that when conducting experiments you change one variable at a time, otherwise the results are very difficult to interpret.

Whilst I think that one or two players who are not in the starting XV this week may be better options than those who are, I completely agree with Lancasters view that some continuity and stability is required at this stage.

I don't see the point of Lancaster, as an INTERIM head coach, establishing stability and continuity when any achievements that he makes in those areas will potentially be blown out of the water as soon as a permanent appointment is made. Those things are determined by long term vision, and Lancaster's is more or less irrelevant unless he gets the job full time.

I don't see that England have any choice but to experiment at the moment. The transition of young players into the senior squad has been handled so badly for so long that there are not any experienced players performing well anymore.

Before establishing continuity, you need to be certain that you have identified the player's who you can build a team around. England haven't done that yet.

I repeat myself....WHAT is learnt about a player, playing one game in the intensity of a 6n game?
You learn squat! And even less in a TEAM full of beginners!

Most players need a good few games at least to get any kind of confidence at the next level...

So Lancaster should throw a load of young kids in with no stability at all and happily lose in the name of blooding youngsters in your opinion?

That is a nonsense approach. Yes, he is the interim head coach, but he has already expressed his desire for the job on a permanent basis, which he definitely will not get if he throws players in with gay abandon and no regard for either the results, or the ability to realistically analyse individuals performance.

He has set a platform. The players that he has identified all understand what he wants. They can see his core values and he sees those in them. They will (rightly) get more than just the one game (against Scotland) to show him either that they are good enough to play at this level or not.

If and when he is satisfied that a player is not good enough then he will bring in somebody else to have a look at and make an assessment.

You have to remember he has no platform from which to build from as a result of a sustained period of mismanagement of the England team, and as such he is having to build a platform from scratch, which you cannot do by constantly chopping and changing personnel at this early stage.

Geordie and Ozzy; couldn't have made the point better than that! Well done.

I suspect none of the England followers will be complaining after the weekend's rout. To think we still have so many players of experience and proven ability to come back into this squad. It really is an exciting time to be an England fan. 2015 here we come.

miteyironpaw wrote:I suspect none of the England followers will be complaining after the weekend's rout. To think we still have so many players of experience and proven ability to come back into this squad. It really is an exciting time to be an England fan. 2015 here we come.

Rallying for RWC seeding is surely the thing that those of the "we won't be relegated if we lose" brigade are forgetting.

But don't we get top billing as we're the hosts of the 2015 RWC?

Just checked, apparently Allen was dropped after 2 games not 1. Sorry, been unfair to Robinson there...

ChequeredJersey wrote:Just checked, apparently Allen was dropped after 2 games not 1. Sorry, been unfair to Robinson there...

HERSH wrote:But don't we get top billing as we're the hosts of the 2015 RWC?

No, being host doenst get you top pot seeding.

I am very happy that Lancaster as named the same team as last week. Personaly i would of liked to have Morgan at 8 and Dowson on the bench.

Just checked, apparently Allen was dropped after 2 games not 1. Sorry, been unfair to Robinson there....

Apparently it was because he tried to pass the ball and play with width. As far as Robinson is concerned the wingers are there for defensive purposes only, they much try and keep the game as narrow and as forward orientated as possible. Oh and for multiple kick chases as well!

I am very happy that Lancaster as named the same team as last week. Personaly i would of liked to have Morgan at 8 and Dowson on the bench..

Parling in for Palmer and Palmer to the bench and it would have been good. Give us some additional ball carrying strength and a better lineout so we can win more ball and actually go through some phases.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Just checked, apparently Allen was dropped after 2 games not 1. Sorry, been unfair to Robinson there....

Apparently it was because he tried to pass the ball and play with width. As far as Robinson is concerned the wingers are there for defensive purposes only, they much try and keep the game as narrow and as forward orientated as possible. Oh and for multiple kick chases as well!

I WAS being tongue in cheek there, you know

Happy with no changes, for Saints Dowson never seems to have poor games twice in a row and I expect a bit more of an impact from the whole pack this weekend.

We have a win now it's time to show some fluidity in our plays. If this game is another stinker then i'll be a little worried about Lancasters coaching.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

I just can't understand playing the best EQ inside centre at 13.

Cause Farrell's daddy wants him to be the England 12? I'd imagine that Lancaster is concerned that at 13 Farrell's lack of pace may be exposed by quicker 13s (see game at Gloucester for Trinder breezing past him) and so has moved him in one and given the more experienced defender Barritt (who isn't much quicker) the job of shutting down the opposition attack in the 13 channel until Manu is back.

Other way round - Farrell is quicker than Barritt and I remember Trinder running away as Barritt ran through treacle and then Farrell coming over to make the covering tackle. The 12/13 selection still suggests England may be thinking of playing Tuilagi outside Farrell when we play Wales, but let's see how the team goes on Saturday first.

I think it's a sensible selection. Two games will give the coaching team far more information than 1, as the team should have a much better idea of what it is trying to achieve. SL can then decide whether to recall players like Flood, Tuilagi and Lawes straight to the starting line-up. I still hope that by the end of the 6 Nations we'll be playing:

Foden, Ashton, Tuilagi, Farrell/Barritt, Sharples, Flood/Hodgson, Youngs/Dickson, Mullan, Hartley, Cole, Garvey, Lawes, Robshaw, Wood, Morgan.

But lots of places are up for grabs as far as I'm concerned.

DaveM wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

I just can't understand playing the best EQ inside centre at 13.

Cause Farrell's daddy wants him to be the England 12? I'd imagine that Lancaster is concerned that at 13 Farrell's lack of pace may be exposed by quicker 13s (see game at Gloucester for Trinder breezing past him) and so has moved him in one and given the more experienced defender Barritt (who isn't much quicker) the job of shutting down the opposition attack in the 13 channel until Manu is back.

Other way round - Farrell is quicker than Barritt and I remember Trinder running away as Barritt ran through treacle and then Farrell coming over to make the covering tackle. The 12/13 selection still suggests England may be thinking of playing Tuilagi outside Farrell when we play Wales, but let's see how the team goes on Saturday first.

I think it's a sensible selection. Two games will give the coaching team far more information than 1, as the team should have a much better idea of what it is trying to achieve. SL can then decide whether to recall players like Flood, Tuilagi and Lawes straight to the starting line-up. I still hope that by the end of the 6 Nations we'll be playing:

Foden, Ashton, Tuilagi, Farrell/Barritt, Sharples, Flood/Hodgson, Youngs/Dickson, Mullan, Hartley, Cole, Garvey, Lawes, Robshaw, Wood, Morgan.

But lots of places are up for grabs as far as I'm concerned.

That team looks pretty much spot on.. I would like to see Jonny May or Jonathan Joseph have a go off the bench in the 6 nations as they are great prospects...also Luke Wallace and Henry Thomas (IF fit) into the squad for the trip in the summer to SA ..

May would be a great bench option. Brown is a good player, but I think you either start him or leave him out of the matchday squad. Thomas and JJ are both on England's radar - I'd expect them both to tour this summer with the extended party, possibly with Thomas in the core element. The England management so far appear unconvinced with Wallace, but then it's his breakthrough season and he has plenty of time.

I just want to see Strettle get a couple of chances to live up to a little of the potential he showed when he first appeared on the international scene. He was one of those players who looked completely happy at this level from day one.

Who is Henry Thomas?

propdavid_london wrote:Who is Henry Thomas?

John Thomas' name for his Winkle?

propdavid_london wrote:Who is Henry Thomas?

A Prop for Sale Sharks. Very talented youngster, made a good number of first team starts, and played in the U20s last season. Was a stand-out player at the junior WC (along with many other England boys), and scored a fantastic try using his incredible turn of pace for a man his size...and position. A few people are worried that he may be undersized at the moment for his position, but at 20 years of age, he's got a lot more growing to do!

DaveM wrote:

Foden, Ashton, Tuilagi, Farrell/Barritt, Sharples, Flood/Hodgson, Youngs/Dickson, Mullan, Hartley, Cole, Garvey, Lawes, Robshaw, Wood, Morgan.

Love the look of that team

bluestonevedder wrote:

DaveM wrote:

Foden, Ashton, Tuilagi, Farrell/Barritt, Sharples, Flood/Hodgson, Youngs/Dickson, Mullan, Hartley, Cole, Garvey, Lawes, Robshaw, Wood, Morgan.

Love the look of that team

Interesting that Corbisiero was arguably england's best player against Scotland, yet people still want him replaced in the team.

yeah i cant see corbs losing his place in the 6 nations, who knows under the permanent coach mind

DaveM wrote:

Foden, Ashton, Tuilagi, Farrell/Barritt, Sharples, Flood/Hodgson, Youngs/Dickson, Mullan, Hartley, Cole, Garvey, Lawes, Robshaw, Wood, Morgan.

Yes, these names will be burned into the history books come 2015, I have no doubt, also seems like the core of the first choice Lions squad for Australia too.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

DaveM wrote:

Foden, Ashton, Tuilagi, Farrell/Barritt, Sharples, Flood/Hodgson, Youngs/Dickson, Mullan, Hartley, Cole, Garvey, Lawes, Robshaw, Wood, Morgan.

Love the look of that team

Interesting that Corbisiero was arguably england's best player against Scotland, yet people still want him replaced in the team.

I think it's because they can't say his name, but Mullan should be involved more.

HERSH wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

DaveM wrote:

Foden, Ashton, Tuilagi, Farrell/Barritt, Sharples, Flood/Hodgson, Youngs/Dickson, Mullan, Hartley, Cole, Garvey, Lawes, Robshaw, Wood, Morgan.

Love the look of that team

Interesting that Corbisiero was arguably england's best player against Scotland, yet people still want him replaced in the team.

I think it's because they can't say his name, but Mullan should be involved more.

Shes probably my least favourite Disney cartoon, and certainly no Betty Rubble.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

HERSH wrote:But don't we get top billing as we're the hosts of the 2015 RWC?

No, being host doenst get you top pot seeding.

You do if its in NZ

miteyironpaw wrote:

DaveM wrote:

Foden, Ashton, Tuilagi, Farrell/Barritt, Sharples, Flood/Hodgson, Youngs/Dickson, Mullan, Hartley, Cole, Garvey, Lawes, Robshaw, Wood, Morgan.

Yes, these names will be burned into the history books come 2015, I have no doubt, also seems like the core of the first choice Lions squad for Australia too.

Yeah for all the worng reasons from an english stance hahahaha As for Lions Squad they will do well in the mid week games I imagine.

Who would you honestly bring in to the squad? man for man with justifications please. I just can't see the options across potential Lions.

Selection-wise, as others have said, my only change would be Dowson on the bench and Morgan to start. I read Guscott's column on the BBC earlier in which he questioned the criticism of Dowson, saying he 'only remembered him dropping one restart.' I think this sums up Jerry's appreciation of forward play !

My worries with Dowson are 3-fold. Firstly, he is not a number 8, as he has been billed. He is really just a versatile 6 who can cover 7 and 8 at club level. Secondly, he is underpowered for international rugby. This links to the first point in terms of what he brings to a side, but for me an international 8 needs to be capable of making some hard yards, and for all the graft that Dowson puts in, and the things he does well, he is not the hole-punching ball-carrier that England desperately lack. Finally, and more generally, he is old. People talk about him bringing experience but, quite seriously, if this is the criteria on which we're picking then Nick Easter would be an infinitely better selection.

I don't dislike Dowson - as a backrower myself I've got huge respect for the amount of work he gets through and his all-round game - but he is not international class, and never will be. My concern is that he's one of Lancaster's men and we'll see a fair bit of misplaced confidence and loyalty in Dowson before Morgan - who could actually be the long term answer to England's 8 problems - gets a look in (it would be facetious of me - at this stage - to point out that this is exactly the type of thing that Johnson was torn-apart for....).

[quote="Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler"-]

She's my least favourite Disney cartoon, and certainly no Betty Rubble.[/quote]

Sacrilege! Milan was a great Disney film!

mawhis wrote:I don't see the point of Lancaster, as an INTERIM head coach, establishing stability and continuity when any achievements that he makes in those areas will potentially be blown out of the water as soon as a permanent appointment is made. Those things are determined by long term vision, and Lancaster's is more or less irrelevant unless he gets the job full time.

I don't see that England have any choice but to experiment at the moment. The transition of young players into the senior squad has been handled so badly for so long that there are not any experienced players performing well anymore.

Before establishing continuity, you need to be certain that you have identified the player's who you can build a team around. England haven't done that yet.

I actually have some sympathy for your point - why has he ditched some of the old guard (and thank God he has) but then kept Dowson. Old, no experience, and although in ok form, not in any better form than Morgan.

It;s not for me a point of 'throwing kids in who'll get smashed' - it's play the players on best form. It just so happens most of those are young.

I'm prepared to give him a chance - but no Garvey, none of the Gloucester backs, Morgan on the bench. It's a halfway house of some players on form, some viewed as on form simply by dint of the team they're in. and some actually fairly old guys who probably won't make the next WC and who aren't on amazing form. What is his selection criteria?

It's not about wanting a team of tyros, it's about not wanting a team of players whose form should preclude them. I'll make an exception with Corbs as his form looked rubbish to me, but we'd seen enough in other games for england he potentially has what it takes.

Sheridan is back tonight playing for Sale. IF he remains injury free and his form warrants it would he be worth a punt for England even though he is off to Toulon?

Well the props seem to be doing OK actually but we'll see how they fair in Rome

hugehandoff wrote:Sheridan is back tonight playing for Sale. IF he remains injury free and his form warrants it would he be worth a punt for England even though he is off to Toulon?

No, let him fade away for one last payday in the South of France. He was a good player at his best, but injuries took their toll and kept him out. We've got real options coming through, Corbisiero looked every bit an International prop against Scotland on the weekend and we've got Marler, Mullan and Wood all pushing him. 4 real options there, there's no need for Sheridan. It would be a backward step and, unless he's right at the top of his game, is no better than some of the other options we have.

I think people might be being a bit unfair on Dowson. Was he brilliant? No, but it was his first cap. He's been given a second chance and we'll see how he goes from there. Morgan will almost definitely get his second cap from the bench and we might get to see a little more of him this week. If Dowson doesn't play well we can bring in Morgan for Dowson for he Wales game, if he does play well (against one of the best 8s going) then we know he's got what it takes to play 8 at this level and can keep him in the squad.

What I'm saying is that it's too early to cast aside some of these new caps. I would have rather seen Morgan start against Scotland, but now he's picked who he's picked he's got to give him a decent run, he can't just chop and change on whims.

Agreed Chequered and Sheridan needs a fair few games anyway, but come the Ireland game if he is fit I would at least prefer to have him off the bench than some of the others. But purely an academic question for now.

As always it's better to have decent players in a position and not to need them than to need decent players in a position and not to have them

Robbo - agreed re Dowson in that he needs another chance. The selectors make a judgement call that a player is worth selecting and to be fair a player needs more than 1 match to state his case. But it is a competitve world and others are waiting their turn. He knows he needs to improve on his performance or Morgan will be in. It would also be nice to give him a home game as well.
As for Sheridan I have always rated him highly and believe that at his best he is our best loosehead. Significantly better than Marler for sure. But until he plays several games and shows decent form then SL will not have to worry about him.

Adam wrote:Selection-wise, as others have said, my only change would be Dowson on the bench and Morgan to start. I read Guscott's column on the BBC earlier in which he questioned the criticism of Dowson, saying he 'only remembered him dropping one restart.' I think this sums up Jerry's appreciation of forward play !

My worries with Dowson are 3-fold. Firstly, he is not a number 8, as he has been billed. He is really just a versatile 6 who can cover 7 and 8 at club level. Secondly, he is underpowered for international rugby. This links to the first point in terms of what he brings to a side, but for me an international 8 needs to be capable of making some hard yards, and for all the graft that Dowson puts in, and the things he does well, he is not the hole-punching ball-carrier that England desperately lack. Finally, and more generally, he is old. People talk about him bringing experience but, quite seriously, if this is the criteria on which we're picking then Nick Easter would be an infinitely better selection.

I don't dislike Dowson - as a backrower myself I've got huge respect for the amount of work he gets through and his all-round game - but he is not international class, and never will be. My concern is that he's one of Lancaster's men and we'll see a fair bit of misplaced confidence and loyalty in Dowson before Morgan - who could actually be the long term answer to England's 8 problems - gets a look in (it would be facetious of me - at this stage - to point out that this is exactly the type of thing that Johnson was torn-apart for....).

I basically agree with all of that, Haskell showed last season how important some real oomph at 8 is for the team as a whole to play off, and if any one watches Easter for Quins he provides that same momentum for the team, especially when things are getting slowed down.

Robbo, fair play - he's picked Dowson and now that he has he should probably give him a fair crack of the whip and not chop and change after one game in which nobody really had a chance to shine.

But I question Lancaster's logic in picking him in the first place, to be honest. I guess it's because all throughout the Johnson years when people were slating Easter and calling for Dowson's inclusion I always suspected that he wasn't an international number 8, and last week seemed to prove that, if not conclusively (although if he was generally outmuscled in the tackle by the Scots then I wince to think what will happen when the likes of Ferris, O'Brien and Warburton get hold of him). What do we know? We know he's not a specialist 8. We know he's in his 30's. We know he's got an existing relationship with Lancaster from his Saxons days. All of which leads me to conclude that he was selected for the wrong reasons.

Yeah, he's there now so give him another chance. But my faith in Lancaster is dampened.

hugehandoff wrote:Robbo - agreed re Dowson in that he needs another chance. The selectors make a judgement call that a player is worth selecting and to be fair a player needs more than 1 match to state his case. But it is a competitve world and others are waiting their turn. He knows he needs to improve on his performance or Morgan will be in. It would also be nice to give him a home game as well.
As for Sheridan I have always rated him highly and believe that at his best he is our best loosehead. Significantly better than Marler for sure. But until he plays several games and shows decent form then SL will not have to worry about him.

I agree it is competitive, and if Dowson has a poor first half I wouldn't be afraid to haul him off at half-time and drop him from the team (and possibly the squad with Wood coming back) for the Wales game. It's a fine balance, that's for sure.

Sheridan is our best loose-head when he's on top form, but obviously we don't know how he's going to play now he's back from another injury. I really doubt we'll see him in an England shirt again and, if I were in the hotseat, I'm not sure I'd pick him again either.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

HERSH wrote:But don't we get top billing as we're the hosts of the 2015 RWC?

No, being host doenst get you top pot seeding.

Oh yeh? Then how come New Zealand were no 1 seeds at the last one?

Can't quite understand why people are shouting for Parling instead of Palmer, we've got loads of lineout options available, but Palmer's work rate is a cut above. In a defensive display last week he was the 2nd highest tackler behind Barritt when you'd expect it to be a back rower.

On that subject, is there anybody that Croft can tackle?!?!?!

bathmad wrote:Can't quite understand why people are shouting for Parling instead of Palmer, we've got loads of lineout options available, but Palmer's work rate is a cut above. In a defensive display last week he was the 2nd highest tackler behind Barritt when you'd expect it to be a back rower.

On that subject, is there anybody that Croft can tackle?!?!?!

Is that accurate? Because other stats say differently...