England all-time professional team

Wales have a thread and wanted to make one for England too as its seems a bit of a laugh. So who is your England all time greatest 15 of the professional era. It is generally regarded that rugby turned professional in 1995 after the South Africa RWC.

1) Leonard
2) Thompson
3) Vickery
4) Johnson
5) Shaw
6) Hill
7) Back
8) Dallaglio
9) Dawson
10) Wilkinson
11) Robinson
12) Greenwood
13) Guscott
14) Underwood
15) Lewsey

The Pro era has suited England well, the Greatest England team ever assembled won the World Cup in 03, alongside them before and after are a few, very few players who would have added to that great team in my mind. Pretty frightening looking side with the core of that 03 team whoever the extras are.

1. Woodman
2. Thompson
3. Vickery
4. Johnson
5. Shaw
6. Hill
7. Back
8. Dallaglio
9. Youngs
10. Flood
11. Robinson
12. Greenwood
13. Guscott
14. Lewsey
15. Foden

I see you both picked Shaw at sr. Awesome player...but dont forget how good Ben kay was...

I'd not have Shaw and Johnson together - two enforcers, and no technician. So Kay comes in for Shaw. The Leonard of the mid-90s would displace Woodman, although I'm not sure whether a fully fit Sheridan would edge ahead of the Funbus.

I'm not sure I'd go for Youngs. Still looks shaky when the pack are under pressure. Dawson's the obvious choice, but I prefer Bracken.

There's a case to be made for Foden, but in that case I'd put Ashton in as well. I wouldn't go for Robinson and Underwood together; I'd prefer a contrasting wing, which could be Ashton, but I think Cohen was massively under-rated, even at the time. He was scoring evey other game, but preventing a certain try at least once a game. That's worth 10 points a game.

1. leonard
2. thompson
3. vickery
4. johnson.
5. shaw
6. Hill
7. Back
8. Dallaglio
9. Dawson
10. Wilko
11. Cohen
12. Greenwood
13. Guscott
14. Robinson
15. Lewsey

very nearly put in kay for shaw but ultimately i reckon shaw is a better player. considered tuilagi at 13 (very pre-emptively) because greenwood putting him into space would be so hard to stop. Went for cohen because his scoring record was great and he contrasts well with robinson on the other wing by bringing power and height, while underwood is too similar to robinson. lewsey as a great modern player good under the high ball, strong, quick, good hands got everything really he is safe as houses at the back

I notice that none of you have picked Chris Robshaw in the back row. Some mistake surely?

15- Foden circa 2010
14- Robinson
13- Guscott
12- Greenwood
11- Underwood
10- Wilkinson circa 2003
9- Dawson

1- Leonard
2- Thompson
3- Vickery
4- Johnson c.
5- Kay
6- Hill
7- Back
8- Dallaglio

Pretty easy isn't it?

Bench of

16- Woodman
17- Mears?
18- Shaw
19- hard this one- but probs Corry for his ability to cover everything
20- Ellis
21- Flood
22- Lewsey

None of the young uns have really shown what they can do for long enough to break into the 2003 team. Only Foden, and Barely just and because I like my 22 to cover more than one position

Poorfour wrote:I'd not have Shaw and Johnson together - two enforcers, and no technician. So Kay comes in for Shaw. The Leonard of the mid-90s would displace Woodman, although I'm not sure whether a fully fit Sheridan would edge ahead of the Funbus.

I'm not sure I'd go for Youngs. Still looks shaky when the pack are under pressure. Dawson's the obvious choice, but I prefer Bracken.

There's a case to be made for Foden, but in that case I'd put Ashton in as well. I wouldn't go for Robinson and Underwood together; I'd prefer a contrasting wing, which could be Ashton, but I think Cohen was massively under-rated, even at the time. He was scoring evey other game, but preventing a certain try at least once a game. That's worth 10 points a game.

I agree that shaw and Johnson were too similar to be a good combo, my thinking was that it was Johnson and a lesser other and Shaw had been such a superb player that he was the outstanding choice.

Can't tell you what any of us would have given for a player of eithers ability during their careers. They made a huge difference, even in a talented team.

Rory Underwood (well I assume that is the one being selected) played very little in the Pro-Era. In fact i am not sure he actually played internationals as a pro. Any way his feats were really achieved pre-95 so should not be included I reckon.

For me:

Leonard (just)
thompson
Vickery
Johnson
Kay
Hill
Back
Dayglo
Healey (controversial)
Wilkinson (2002 vintage)
Robinson
Greenwood
Guscott (just based on pro performances 95-99)
Cohen
Lewsey


I think it is hard to judge players still playing - and so many of the current team are near the start of their international careers.

I reckon that Cole, Lawes, Youngs, a number of 10s, Manu, Ashton and Foden could, depending on how their careers develop feature in such a list in 10 years time.

Really surprised at how many current players people are pushing. Having Cole and Sheridan challenging Leonard and Vickery is almost laughable in my book. Leonard and Vickery acheived so much so consistently over a huge period of time and whilst Cole could and possibly should match this considering his age, he isn't anywhere near that level yet and Sheridan is massively over rated I think.

Also don't understand why Cohen isn't in there more and possibly Luger too. I think missing out Perry at full back is also a huge over sight.

Leonard------Thompson------Vickery

Johnson-----Kay

Hill----------Dallalgio----------Back

Dawson-----Wilkinson

Greenwood---Guscott

Cohen-----Perry---Robinson

LT didn't say that Cole was pushing for a place though, just that if he continued as is at the moment he Might feature in this list in 10 years' time. In fact only 4 current players have been pushed, including Sheridan whom nobody actually picked,

Bathite wrote:Really surprised at how many current players people are pushing. Having Cole and Sheridan challenging Leonard and Vickery is almost laughable in my book. Leonard and Vickery acheived so much so consistently over a huge period of time and whilst Cole could and possibly should match this considering his age, he isn't anywhere near that level yet and Sheridan is massively over rated I think.

Also don't understand why Cohen isn't in there more and possibly Luger too. I think missing out Perry at full back is also a huge over sight.

Leonard------Thompson------Vickery

Johnson-----Kay

Hill----------Dallalgio----------Back

Dawson-----Wilkinson

Greenwood---Guscott

Cohen-----Perry---Robinson

In retrospect that is quite a sad statement of the predicament. Yes the 02-03 England team were frankly superb but England as a nation have failed drastically to continue from the pinnacle they reached.

I would include Flood, Youngs and Foden as I think they are better players than the others in contention for their position. They would have made the team better. Maybe their current recognition is tarnished by those around them not being as great as their predecessors?

It makes me sad when I think about the way things went for Trevor Woodman, he retired just as he was going into his prime. I think he had the potential to go on and be remembered as one of England's greats.

maestegmafia wrote:

Bathite wrote:Really surprised at how many current players people are pushing. Having Cole and Sheridan challenging Leonard and Vickery is almost laughable in my book. Leonard and Vickery acheived so much so consistently over a huge period of time and whilst Cole could and possibly should match this considering his age, he isn't anywhere near that level yet and Sheridan is massively over rated I think.

Also don't understand why Cohen isn't in there more and possibly Luger too. I think missing out Perry at full back is also a huge over sight.

Leonard------Thompson------Vickery

Johnson-----Kay

Hill----------Dallalgio----------Back

Dawson-----Wilkinson

Greenwood---Guscott

Cohen-----Perry---Robinson

In retrospect that is quite a sad statement of the predicament. Yes the 02-03 England team were frankly superb but England as a nation have failed drastically to continue from the pinnacle they reached.

I would include Flood, Youngs and Foden as I think they are better players than the others in contention for their position. They would have made the team better. Maybe their current recognition is tarnished by those around them not being as great as their predecessors?

To be honest it would take a seriously exceptional player to push out one of the 2000 to 2003 vintage and there just haven’t been many. They were a once in a lifetime group of players who (I believe) had about a 90% winning ratio over a 4 year period. Going into the world cup I would say at least 10 of the starting 15, potentially more were the best in the world in their position at the time. Your assertion that Flood and Young’s should be in there is frankly a wum. People talk about our problems at fly half since 2003 but I believe the biggest position we have struggled to replace since then was scrum half. People don't like him but Dawson was an outstanding player. Wilkinson’s last few international years may have tarnished his reputation a little but I don't think you would find many sane people who wouldn't put him at No.2 in the list of professional era fly half’s (if they were being honest).

Maybe at the end of their careers Young’s and Flood would be in there but right now? No chance.

It does seem odd though, in the period 2003- until relatively recently we didn't have any exceptional players at all. Most teams have at least one or two like Italy with Parisse and Catro. They are average in a lot of areas, but have had a couple of genuinely world class players. We had a team of honest triers who at times seemed like stodgy mediocrity itself.

Now we have guys like the young front row and the likes of Foden, Ashton and a few others. You can see them at least begin to start to think about challenging the reputation of the former greats.

I thought Ellis really looked like he could replace Dawson until he had to retire

Toadfish wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Bathite wrote:Really surprised at how many current players people are pushing. Having Cole and Sheridan challenging Leonard and Vickery is almost laughable in my book. Leonard and Vickery acheived so much so consistently over a huge period of time and whilst Cole could and possibly should match this considering his age, he isn't anywhere near that level yet and Sheridan is massively over rated I think.

Also don't understand why Cohen isn't in there more and possibly Luger too. I think missing out Perry at full back is also a huge over sight.

Leonard------Thompson------Vickery

Johnson-----Kay

Hill----------Dallalgio----------Back

Dawson-----Wilkinson

Greenwood---Guscott

Cohen-----Perry---Robinson

In retrospect that is quite a sad statement of the predicament. Yes the 02-03 England team were frankly superb but England as a nation have failed drastically to continue from the pinnacle they reached.

I would include Flood, Youngs and Foden as I think they are better players than the others in contention for their position. They would have made the team better. Maybe their current recognition is tarnished by those around them not being as great as their predecessors?

To be honest it would take a seriously exceptional player to push out one of the 2000 to 2003 vintage and there just haven’t been many. They were a once in a lifetime group of players who (I believe) had about a 90% winning ratio over a 4 year period. Going into the world cup I would say at least 10 of the starting 15, potentially more were the best in the world in their position at the time. Your assertion that Flood and Young’s should be in there is frankly a wum. People talk about our problems at fly half since 2003 but I believe the biggest position we have struggled to replace since then was scrum half. People don't like him but Dawson was an outstanding player. Wilkinson’s last few international years may have tarnished his reputation a little but I don't think you would find many sane people who wouldn't put him at No.2 in the list of professional era fly half’s (if they were being honest).

Maybe at the end of their careers Young’s and Flood would be in there but right now? No chance.

I explained my thought in my post. I think Youngs and flood are very skilled. Youngs is a better skilled scrum half than Dawson though still retains that eye for the gap, Flood better at the running game though equal in all other areas to Wilkins bar kicking accuracy when both players were at their best.

Foden is in to compliment Lewsey and Robinson, I think he has already shown more ability than the alternative Cohen or Luger suggestions.

I think Kyran Bracken is one of the most underrated English scrum halves. Of course I am biased but I always preferred him to Matt Dawson.

Both Dawson and Bracken are much better than Youngs.

Bracken would certainly blow Ellis out of the water.

maestegmafia wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Bathite wrote:Really surprised at how many current players people are pushing. Having Cole and Sheridan challenging Leonard and Vickery is almost laughable in my book. Leonard and Vickery acheived so much so consistently over a huge period of time and whilst Cole could and possibly should match this considering his age, he isn't anywhere near that level yet and Sheridan is massively over rated I think.

Also don't understand why Cohen isn't in there more and possibly Luger too. I think missing out Perry at full back is also a huge over sight.

Leonard------Thompson------Vickery

Johnson-----Kay

Hill----------Dallalgio----------Back

Dawson-----Wilkinson

Greenwood---Guscott

Cohen-----Perry---Robinson

In retrospect that is quite a sad statement of the predicament. Yes the 02-03 England team were frankly superb but England as a nation have failed drastically to continue from the pinnacle they reached.

I would include Flood, Youngs and Foden as I think they are better players than the others in contention for their position. They would have made the team better. Maybe their current recognition is tarnished by those around them not being as great as their predecessors?

To be honest it would take a seriously exceptional player to push out one of the 2000 to 2003 vintage and there just haven’t been many. They were a once in a lifetime group of players who (I believe) had about a 90% winning ratio over a 4 year period. Going into the world cup I would say at least 10 of the starting 15, potentially more were the best in the world in their position at the time. Your assertion that Flood and Young’s should be in there is frankly a wum. People talk about our problems at fly half since 2003 but I believe the biggest position we have struggled to replace since then was scrum half. People don't like him but Dawson was an outstanding player. Wilkinson’s last few international years may have tarnished his reputation a little but I don't think you would find many sane people who wouldn't put him at No.2 in the list of professional era fly half’s (if they were being honest).

Maybe at the end of their careers Young’s and Flood would be in there but right now? No chance.

I explained my thought in my post. I think Youngs and flood are very skilled. Youngs is a better skilled scrum half than Dawson though still retains that eye for the gap, Flood better at the running game though equal in all other areas to Wilkins bar kicking accuracy when both players were at their best.

Foden is in to compliment Lewsey and Robinson, I think he has already shown more ability than the alternative Cohen or Luger suggestions.

Harsh on Cohen, in his prime he was great

I think Kyran Bracken is one of the most underrated English scrum halves

Probably why Tigers hired him to mentor Ben Youngs (he comes in once a fortnight to work on Youngs technical skills).

Bracken would certainly blow Ellis out of the water

Depends on the team structure. Ellis in his prime was a bit like Mike Phillips, all power and pace with that backrow style tackling and aggression. A gap was made a gaping hole with the speed of Ellis and his opposite number was always in for a torrid time. Bracken was more like a 10s best friend. He was all about giving quality passes and well weighted kicks. Technically better than Ellis but without any of the explosive possibility. Dependent on the pack in front, the 10 and the game plan either would do a great job.

Ben Kay was England's top lineout operator and a real work horse. Not the athletic runners we are seeing come in at the moment but in a powerful pack he is the ideal option to partner an enforcer like Johnno or Shaw (as he proved in 2003 and 2007).

formerly known as Sam wrote:

I think Kyran Bracken is one of the most underrated English scrum halves

Probably why Tigers hired him to mentor Ben Youngs (he comes in once a fortnight to work on Youngs technical skills).

Bracken would certainly blow Ellis out of the water

Depends on the team structure. Ellis in his prime was a bit like Mike Phillips, all power and pace with that backrow style tackling and aggression. A gap was made a gaping hole with the speed of Ellis and his opposite number was always in for a torrid time. Bracken was more like a 10s best friend. He was all about giving quality passes and well weighted kicks. Technically better than Ellis but without any of the explosive possibility. Dependent on the pack in front, the 10 and the game plan either would do a great job.

Ben Kay was England's top lineout operator and a real work horse. Not the athletic runners we are seeing come in at the moment but in a powerful pack he is the ideal option to partner an enforcer like Johnno or Shaw (as he proved in 2003 and 2007).

Bracken has been sent in as a saboteur. Haven't you noticed a dip in Young's form? All down to Bracken.

Fair enough if that's how you feel about Ellis. A Leicester fan is bound to rate him highly as a Saracens fan will rate Bracken highly.

Hmmm....it's hard to judge players on ability when there's a standout group of 15 who are judged on so much more than that. But for this debate to be interesting you can't shout-down suggestions of young current players based on what their early 00's forbears achieved in the game.

Based on skillset rather than achievements, and assuming top form rather than looking at consistency across a long career, I think there's a case for Youngs, Flood, Foden and Ashton getting a place in a team made-up otherwise of 03ers. Although, obviously, there's a strong case against.

Agree with Cumbrian about Woodman - gotta feel for the guy. Also Ellis. Before injury got the better of him, he was such a great little player: nippy, could hurt teams on the break, good pass and very quick to get the ball away, uber-aggressive (overly so at times!) with an endearing disregard for his own safety. Could be my memory playing tricks, but other than when he first emerged on the scene at Leicester, I can't ever remember Ellis enjoying a lengthy injury-free spell!

Bracken has been sent in as a saboteur. Haven't you noticed a dip in Young's form? All down to Bracken.

Fair enough if that's how you feel about Ellis. A Leicester fan is bound to rate him highly as a Saracens fan will rate Bracken highly.

I rate both highly it was just a horses for courses arguement. Youngs lack of form is more to do with the last two England set ups than anything at Tigers. He had no pre season before the RWC because of his knee injury and has been playing catch up ever since. The in the team then on the bench thing at the 6N didn't help. His confidence either needed a proper boost or he needed to go back to Tigers, benching him did neither.

Looking at this, what the Poopie happened 2004-2007 player development wise? There is literally a blackhole for those three years where not a single talented player was brought through.

Adam wrote: Could be my memory playing tricks, but other than when he first emerged on the scene at Leicester, I can't ever remember Ellis enjoying a lengthy injury-free spell!

Harry Ellis was never injured until his knee met Ian Evans studs in December 2005. After that he was never really completely fit.

Bracken used to make breaks and clear the ball fast from breakdowns. His first cap though saw him stamped on by Jamie Joseph - which led to a reduction in pace and a tendency to take a couple of hops away from the breakdown before passing. This meant that although his pass was quicker to the stand-off (in time from leaving hands to getting to the 10) it actually took him longer to clear the ball than Dawson who tended not to hop before passing.

Both very good scrum halves.

yappysnap wrote:Looking at this, what the Poopie happened 2004-2007 player development wise? There is literally a blackhole for those three years where not a single talented player was brought through.

there were a few problems:

a) the younger playes in the WC side suffered injuries. Woodman, Thompson, Vickery & Wilkinson would all have been expected to be the backbone of the side all the way through to the 2007 WC

b) There probably needed to be a quicker clear out of the older players

c) The young fringe players in the 2003 WC squad never really kicked on.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Bracken has been sent in as a saboteur. Haven't you noticed a dip in Young's form? All down to Bracken.

Fair enough if that's how you feel about Ellis. A Leicester fan is bound to rate him highly as a Saracens fan will rate Bracken highly.

I rate both highly it was just a horses for courses arguement. Youngs lack of form is more to do with the last two England set ups than anything at Tigers. He had no pre season before the RWC because of his knee injury and has been playing catch up ever since. The in the team then on the bench thing at the 6N didn't help. His confidence either needed a proper boost or he needed to go back to Tigers, benching him did neither.

What should MJ and SL done with Youngs? Youngs isn't a baby who should be molly coddled. He's a professional rugby player. It's hardly their fault he was playing woeful.

beshocked wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Bracken has been sent in as a saboteur. Haven't you noticed a dip in Young's form? All down to Bracken.

Fair enough if that's how you feel about Ellis. A Leicester fan is bound to rate him highly as a Saracens fan will rate Bracken highly.

I rate both highly it was just a horses for courses arguement. Youngs lack of form is more to do with the last two England set ups than anything at Tigers. He had no pre season before the RWC because of his knee injury and has been playing catch up ever since. The in the team then on the bench thing at the 6N didn't help. His confidence either needed a proper boost or he needed to go back to Tigers, benching him did neither.

What should MJ and SL done with Youngs? Youngs isn't a baby who should be molly coddled. He's a professional rugby player. It's hardly their fault he was playing woeful.

Exactly, when Care was benched for Youngs originally he came back a better player and put in some of his best performances off the bench. Likewise Floods showings off the bench after Wilko or Farrel. It's a 22man team nowdays, players have to be ready to come off the bench as often as start the games.

Honourable mentions XV that probably don't deserve a starting spot but have done england very proud.

1)Rowntree
2)Regan
3)White
4)Grewcock
5) Rodber
6) Worsley
7) Moody
8) Corry
9) Ellis
10) Grayson
11) Luger
12) Phil de Glanville
13) Tindall (hated now but in his pomp he was a great player and has 70 odd caps )
14) Healey (hard where to place but has 50 odd caps and 2 lions tours)
15) Catt (probably better at 12 but has to be in here somewhere)

[quote="beshocked"][quote="formerly known as Sam"]

What should MJ and SL done with Youngs? Youngs isn't a baby who should be molly coddled. He's a professional rugby player. It's hardly their fault he was playing woeful.

Youngs was not fit at the RWC. On one leg he was still better than Wigglesworth. If Care had been fit he would have played.

After the RWC Youngs needed recuperation and had barely played before the 6Ns. Lancaster should not have selected him, but then Care decided to drive after drinking and was dropped from the squad by Lancaster. Lancaster then picked Youngs despite a serious lack of gametime and match fitness. Once he was obviousley not fit and out of form he should have been sent back to Leicester to actually play matches. Only problem there was no alternative so to the bench it was. Then off the bench to play pretty well when Dickson faltered.

Not a huge amount any one could have done, but frankly Youngs does not deserve the crap you keep throwing at him.