Six Players England should give a chance in the Autumn

First topic message reminder :

1. D.Attwood

Attwood is a player who I was surprised wasn't selected to go on tour to South Africa. As a Bath fan, he was one of our standout players this season and played the enforcer role very effectively, making big tackles and putting in the hard yards, whilst he also has soft hands and is an extremely strong scrummager. Botha had a poor tour, whilst Palmer isn't a realistic option moving towards 2015. Matt Garvey of L.Irish impressed me this season, and should also be closely looked at.

2. S.Armitage

Week in, week out this season for Toulon, Armitage has been consistently outstanding, both in defence and attack. He was voted the best player in the Top 14 this season and made the headlines for all the right reasons (unlike his brother). His ball carrying, scavenging and work-rate has been very impressive and he deserves a chance to show how much he has improved. This may mean shifting Robshaw over to 6, however the Robshaw/Armitage partnership reminds me of the Hill/Back partnership that served us so well in 2003.

3. D.Cipriani

One thing was obvious on our tour to South Africa, Farrell isn't ready to run an international backline, whilst Flood although competent at the basics at 10, isn't a world beater. Cipriani has the potential to bring out the best in the players around him, his kicking game, passing and game management is extremely strong, although he remains suspect in defence, which Lancaster may frown upon. Young Freddie Burns and George Ford's development, should also be closely monitored. Burn's impressed last season and Ford has been labelled as a potential superstar for a while now, this season could be his breakthrough season.

4. Billy Twelvetrees

This is a massive season for Twelvetrees. Barritt has been solid in the 12 jersey for England, however one dimensional in attack, with a weak passing and kicking game. Tuilagi impressed at 12 with his ball carrying, but it a more comfortable at 13 and doesn't quite yet possess a passing game. Twelvetrees could potentially be as good as Greenwood, he has an impressive passing game, an eye for the gap and the killer pass. His defence may need a bit of work, but he could be a top player and make that 12 jersey his own by the end of 2013

5. Miles Benjamin

Benjamin has always impressed me, he's extremely quick and very powerful, he's also weighs in over 16stone and is quite a physical specimen. This upcoming season he has moved to Leicester, and if he plays well for the Tigers, I expect international recognition to follow. I heard lots of clubs were interested in signing him, including Bath and i'm gutted he chose the Tigers as I reckon he will be a prolific try scorer for both club and country.

6. Jamie George

Despite Tom Youngs being selected ahead of him to go on tour with England to South Africa, I believe George could be the best young English hooker around. He is currently being tutored by two of South Africa's finest hookers in John Smit and Schalk Britz and is rated very highly at Safacens. His leadership has impressed, his lineout is top notch, scrummaging impressive and work-rate around the field also commended. He's destined for big things and could oust Hartley as the first choice hooker for England, by the end of 2013.

Thoughts?

GeordieFalcon wrote:FES

I think the problem with Waldrom like Hape, Vainikolo etc is his claim to be English doesnt rest easy with some English fans...and we would rather see another player in there....and many also feel the likes of Morgan, Haskell, Fearns, Crane are all actually better.

Fixed it for you. Of course it depends upon what team you follow, I know of people on here quite happy to defend the likes of Mauritz 'the mule' Botha, despite his equally shakey claim to English heritage.

Waldrom is EQ and thats that, and furthermore, he's going well too. Unlike the aforementioned second rower.

Back on topic......

I agree with all 6 getting a chance.

We are well placed in that while all 4 fixtures will be tough, they have been arranged in order of increasing difficulty. This might allow us to build our performance through the series.

What i would dearly love to see is England showing and at least trying to impose a coherent attacking plan upon their opponents which is all about England and is not a tailor made style for each opponent.

Each of Fiji, Australia, SA and ABs will pose different challenges and will defend differently. While a degree of pragmatism is needed we need to get all 4 of them thinking about how to stop us and not the other way round.

We have all seen what happens if you play NZ with a passive frame of mind and allow them to play. We have experienced first hand what happens when you allow SA to get their forward running game going too. We know we have to defend aggressively.

How about attack though?

What will be the plan?

In terms of giving the 6 a go - do we start them against Fiji and persist with them through the series regardless of performance?

How do learn lessons while getting results?

Indeed Tri, that really is the question. Lancaster knows that the AI's are crunch time, the rugby public and RFU are in need of some positivity and a chance to demonstrate some progression in both performance and results. It's going to be a hard ask to get results against at least Fiji, OZ and SA whilst introducing players such as Jamie George and Dave Attwood to the test arena. That's without considering a third FH in Burns or Ford.

What surprises me a little is that, knowing that he was going to outline to Hodgson his retirement post the SA tour; why did he not take Freddie Burns as an extra FH? He could have at least had a midweek game or even the Barbarians. It just seems a waste of an international chance. Unless of course he's waiting for Ford and doesn't consider Burns a realistic long-term option?

In response to the OP, I think Attwood, 36 and George should all be looked at closely, but only 36 has the real chance to stake a claim for a starting spot. I think he'll do well at Glaws, but he has looked a little shaky at times for the Saxons and had a poor game vs the Irish Wolfhounds. Incidentally also the game where my SR choice for the AI's - Garvey, had a storming first half and then was never seen again!

Benjamin and Cipriani I think have an awful lot of proving to do before even getting near a Saxons shirt let alone the AI's. I have seen Cipriani play for the rebels a number of times and he looks no different to when he was at Wasps. Further, I think he's got no chance of fitting into Lancaster's strong team ethos.

Armitage has played really well for Toulon on the whole but I don't think he can realistically be selected. If you have a policy as the RFU do then you should stick to it. It's all very well pointing out Armitage as an exception, but what if that encourages some of our brightest young talent such as Ford and George to go to France or elsewhere, in the belief they'll still be picked anyway?

For the game against Fiji - more of a chance to experiment I think - i'd like to provisionally see these players included:

2. T Youngs - 4. C Lawes - 8. B Morgan - 10. F Burns - 12. B Twelvetrees - 14. J May

16. J George 18. R Harden 19. M Garvey 22. G Ford

The rest of the team would be made up with the usual suspects. All this talk of Morgan being completely incapable of playing test rugby due to his present fitness levels are eye-wash. He played 76 minutes of high intensity rugby against Ireland at the end of the 6N and won a MOTM award for it. He was lacking a lot of game time in SA and didn't even make the Barbarians game the week before the first test.

Probably because if Flood had got injured then he'd be left with a couple of novice fly halves in south Africa. Instead he brought along Hodgson for that and used it to develop Farrell.

HammerofThunor wrote:Probably because if Flood had got injured then he'd be left with a couple of novice fly halves in south Africa. Instead he brought along Hodgson for that and used it to develop Farrell.

But plan A was the only novice he had. If he didnt have faith in Farrell why start him.
This is the same Lancaster who asked the question before the squad went " Why wouldnt we take George Ford or Burns?" (paraphrased). The simple answer was in consultation with the Tigers coaches and Ford they figured hed get more form going to the junior world cup than having the sh1t kicked out of him in midweek games. And despite moaning about Johnno not picking Burns for the world cup squad he obviously just doesnt rate him that highly after all.
Maybe he does see Cipriani as his 3rd choice. Who knows, I get the impression he doesnt.

I'm going to jump to the defence of Morgan here. He was quality during the Six Nations but came to South Africa on the back of an injury and hadn't played for a month or so. I don't know how much training he got before the first test but I know he was quite 50/50. The stats he posted in the first test weren't too bad either.

He underperformed in the second test and Waldrom came in for the third and did reasonably well. Morgan however is still the more talented player and has shown he can handle high paced games with the Scarlets. I just hope he works on his fitness in pre season and comes back at the top of his game.

the back row pool for Autumn will be chosen from the below:

Haskell
Robshaw
Croft
Wood
Armitage
Fearns
Morgan
Crane
Waldrom

Injuries may narrow that down to 6 naturally especially considering Croft, Wood and Crane will all be coming back from serious knocks.

I think we have to pick what we think is our strongest team against Fiji and go from there. They'll be a chance to blood players in a tough environment in Argentina while the Lions are on in summer 2013, but for now we need wins. 3 in the Autumn and 4 in the Six Nations should be the minimum targets.

I think 3 wins in the AI's is a must, but setting a target of matching the performance of the previous 6N I don't think is acceptable. I think a 6N win is the requirement and that should be by Grand Slam.

I'm not taking anything away from the likes of Wales or France etc... but it's about time we set our sights on becoming the number 1 ranked team again and to do that you need the right culture and high ambitions.

I think that launchbury will be ahead of some Of those mentioned, afterall, he was taken to SA originally.

For that same reason, Wade is likely to be ahead of Benjamin too.


While I'm all for experimenting in the AIs, I think we need to be looking to win 2 or 3 of the games, as such, we will need our strongest sides, especially against the big SH teams.

If you put a few experimental pLayers out against Fiji, what do you really learn?
If they play well, was it a one-off, or was it because the opposition was 'only' Fiji?


I therefore think that you have to always start your strongest 15, and if you want to experiment, you do it from the relative safety of the bench.


What has Lawes been like recently? I haven't seen much of him, but I kinda what him back involved.

I would think that the back 5 of the scrum will be:
Palmer
Parling
Haskell
Robshaw
Waldrom
With the bench being:
Launchbury
Croft / Wood / Lawes


It's hard to say exactly who will start and who will bench because we don't know how fit some of the back rowers will be.
Haskell offers the ability to cover the whole back row, and is a better option there than Dowson.
Launchbury also can cover 2nd row and 6.

Obviously Morgan will likely be involved as well, but potentially needs to be fitter.


When we look back to Englands glory days, we had a settled back row, and it was unlikely that anyone else would get a look in, regardless of their form.
It's great that we have a number of quality options, but we need to look at getting a combo and sticking with it where possible.

wasps wrote:If you put a few experimental pLayers out against Fiji, what do you really learn?
If they play well, was it a one-off, or was it because the opposition was 'only' Fiji?


I therefore think that you have to always start your strongest 15, and if you want to experiment, you do it from the relative safety of the bench.

I agree with this completely, and not least because there will be also a chance to put players in for the Argentina tour (when the Lions will be away).

What happens if we try a couple of players out and lose to Fiji? That will set us back so far. Better to play our strongest team and push for a convincing win.

Well Im just sitting here remembering the amount of abuse got from the same people for daring to question Lancaster and the golden boys. I was even accused of being Welsh.
Cioreect though, as with the team, they have their good points but their weak points were exposed on this summer tour. Think Cipriani 6 nations 2008...AI's 2008 but maybe not quite so extreme. Its amazing how fas these palyers reputations can get bust. In Farrells case in particular there was a fair portion of media hype of course.

The one that really concerns me is Ashton, his malaise and the inability for England to get him into the game has been a constant. Im becoming a convert to the notion that his place should no longer be sacred, although with uncertainty on the other wing, centers, and half backs, he probably gets a free pass for now.

robbo277 wrote:

wasps wrote:If you put a few experimental pLayers out against Fiji, what do you really learn?
If they play well, was it a one-off, or was it because the opposition was 'only' Fiji?


I therefore think that you have to always start your strongest 15, and if you want to experiment, you do it from the relative safety of the bench.

I agree with this completely, and not least because there will be also a chance to put players in for the Argentina tour (when the Lions will be away).

What happens if we try a couple of players out and lose to Fiji? That will set us back so far. Better to play our strongest team and push for a convincing win.

Right ...experiment with players you genuinely believe will make the side stronger, otherwise whats the point?

robbo277 wrote:

wasps wrote:If you put a few experimental pLayers out against Fiji, what do you really learn?
If they play well, was it a one-off, or was it because the opposition was 'only' Fiji?


I therefore think that you have to always start your strongest 15, and if you want to experiment, you do it from the relative safety of the bench.

I agree with this completely, and not least because there will be also a chance to put players in for the Argentina tour (when the Lions will be away).

What happens if we try a couple of players out and lose to Fiji? That will set us back so far. Better to play our strongest team and push for a convincing win.

Gentleman please can we stop talking about 'experimenting' as if it was some sort of casual 'cast one's eye' over a few of the young guns to establish a bit of extra depth. We NEED to alter the starting line-up against a side like Fiji out of necessity not experimentation. And yes the Argentina tour will be a good opportunity for youngsters, but that's going to be too late for some positions in the squad.

Can I just outline here what we're looking at selection-wise now that Hodgson and Mears have retired. If we take the not inconceivable notion that Hartley is banned and Flood is injured during the AI's, where are we then? Are you still going to sit there and tell me that we need to put our strongest team out against Fiji regardless of these potential absentees?

What we are left with is Farrell at 10 (someone we've all acknowledged isn't anywhere near a complete enough player at top test level yet. And Rob Webber at hooker who's played 10 minutes at hooker and 10 minutes as a stand-in blind-side flanker.

Can we now appreciate the situation in which we find ourselves in terms of depth in two crucial positions, hooker and fly half. Heck we aren't even sure Flood is the long-term option!

Im in agreeance with the "play the strongest team" posters.

Ive listed on other threads...theres possibly 4/5 if that who are nailed on starters. Cole, Hartley, Robshaw, Foden and Ashton (?).

Now personally whilst i like competition in all positions...i still want that 1st XV that rolls off the tongue...but with the challengers litterally pushing them all the way...ie Foden first choice...but Brown and Goode really pushing him...that if his form does drop then theres players of equal ability to come in. Of course...should foden remain where he is and say Goode show that he has better alround skills, bigger kick etc, thus a better full back...then he will become 1st choice..but its a gradual process...not just chop and change every game.

I think until we can say we are in that position...we cant mess about.

lets sort out the second row...lets sort out the back row once and for all...lets get the half backs cemented...lets get the centres sorted.....

chjw113....

I know what you're saying, but it's rarely the right thing to do to play a weakened team.
What we need to be doing us starting with Hartley, and bringing Webber (or whoever us next in line) off the bench in the 2nd half, and not just for 10 minutes
We may then get to the stage where we have 2 hookers of relative ability, and then you can look at changing the starter / bench option depending on the circumstances.

The same goes for FH.
What benefit would we get from seeing Burns against Fiji?
If he doesn't play well, it may have just been a one-off, similarly we wont learn a lot if he plays well.... Thats before we consider the Back line having to get used to a new FH for just one game.

What we can do, is start either Flood, or Farrell, and rest the other. We can then bring someone else on from the bench and see how they go.
However, the more pivotal the position, the less likely you are to see much experimentation, and thats true of all teams.
Even the All Blacks have really only recently started experimenting at 10, hence why they had a few issues identifying the best option at the RWC.
FH can be transitioned easier if you can play your 10 at IC, that way you gave options already on the pitch (as the ABs are currently doing with Carter, and we did with Wilko), the only problem with that at the moment is that our back line attack is not based around 2 fly halves, and would therefore need to be completely changed again.


I agree that we need some experienced backup options for every position, but they need to be fed in slowly.

I can certainly accept the point of view that one should play one's strongest available starting XV. Ordinarily speaking I would agree with those sorts of sentiments, but I feel we're in an unusual position here.

Not only do we have some problems with key positions on the field, but in many cases we have just 1 player currently in those positions. Generally speaking one would expect a gradual feed through of younger players into a relatively experienced team, but we're not really in that position.

All i'm saying is that we have only around 30 test matches left on the calendar until we need to have a starting team and bench that virtually picks itself. We are so far away from there at the moment that time is not on our side. We need to get some experience to those identified as future stars and we need it now.

I see what you're saying as regards what we might or might not learn from the Fiji match but the more exposure the better. The majority of the '03 team was in place by this point, we're on another planet in those terms at present.

I'm not happy with Farrell being a starting FH, he's not even that experienced and already he's seen as the way forward. For me, and many others that just leaves Flood who many don't exactly consider to be a world beater.

Likewise at hooker where Hartley has been steady but relatively unimpressive, can we afford to go into a home RWC with a mediocre hooker and a FH that can't utilise a backline?

And before anyone mentions the 2007 RWC in response to a mediocre hooker and limited FH, we all know that we had some serious luck and committed forwards back then!

And we also know that there was a lot of experimentation with team in the run up to the tournament, and when it came down to it noone had a clue what they were doing or who anyone else was.

Its not like Lancatser hasnt been experimenting, theres been quite a bit of chop changing even without the injuries.

If a players going to be selected it has to be because they genuinely believe he could add to the strength of the side. Theres little point in trying out players you have no faith in, unless your going to admit that you dont know what youre doing and pick the team off a 606 weekly vote

I do agree with all of this, andI also understand that international teams don't really have long to develop therefore you have to play the strongest players from the domestic league and hope they make the grade.


We've done a lot of experimenting in a short space of time in the forwards, unfortunately, I'm not sure that we're that much further forward, but at least we havea couple of options for each position (other than hooker, and TH)

I think the problem with the backs is that Lancaster needs to determine how hire he wants his back line to play, and then pick centres and a 10 to match it.
I'm not convinced about Farrell at 10, but if he plays the way Lancaster wants, then thats OK. the problem is that most of the other fly halves that are being mentioned won't, really play the same type of game as Farrell.
While that can be seen as being a game changer, it means that the while team has to play different accordingly.


I think that Flood is our best option, and I don't really Have a problem with that but I think that our second choice FH needs to be able to play a similar type of game.
Who that is, I dont know.



The more I think about it, the more I'm looking the idea of Twelvetrees at 12. If he can hack it, it solves a lot of problems

Chjw131 wrote:I can certainly accept the point of view that one should play one's strongest available starting XV. Ordinarily speaking I would agree with those sorts of sentiments, but I feel we're in an unusual position here.

Not only do we have some problems with key positions on the field, but in many cases we have just 1 player currently in those positions. Generally speaking one would expect a gradual feed through of younger players into a relatively experienced team, but we're not really in that position.

All i'm saying is that we have only around 30 test matches left on the calendar until we need to have a starting team and bench that virtually picks itself. We are so far away from there at the moment that time is not on our side. We need to get some experience to those identified as future stars and we need it now.

I see what you're saying as regards what we might or might not learn from the Fiji match but the more exposure the better. The majority of the '03 team was in place by this point, we're on another planet in those terms at present.

I'm not happy with Farrell being a starting FH, he's not even that experienced and already he's seen as the way forward. For me, and many others that just leaves Flood who many don't exactly consider to be a world beater.

Likewise at hooker where Hartley has been steady but relatively unimpressive, can we afford to go into a home RWC with a mediocre hooker and a FH that can't utilise a backline?

We don't have a starting team though. I'm happy with our front row (Corbs, Hartley, Cole), our half-backs (Youngs and Flood) and a few other backs (Tuilagi, Ashton and Foden), but there are serious questions about our second row, our back row, our 12 and the third member of our back three (be it a winger or a full back). Pick the players we know will be there and then pick the best players in the other positions against Fiji, and see how we go from there. If we decide that Twelvetrees and Wade are our best options at 12 and 11, then we play them and we play them outside Flood (yes, he is our best 10 for now and the foreseeable future - you may not be sure but I am), not Farrell or Burns. That way we can see how these players will fit into our best team. Same with the second row, if we try out Robson because we think he's our best second row and he's calling the line-out, then he should have the best forwards around him. What if we pick Robson and also rest Hartley and Tom Youngs ends up throwing every line-out two meters over his jumper's head? Robson looks like he's led a poor line-out, when it might not be his fault.

Right now there are too many question marks in our team to start experimenting with the players we know.

I don't like this "30 games" argument either. 30 games to what? The World Cup? Our best back at the 2011 World Cup went in with 2/3 caps and, just a year before the tournament, I laughed when his club coach suggested he'd make the England World Cup squad (shows what I know!) Chris Ashton also scored something like 9 tries in his first 9 International appearances. You don't need tons of experience to make an impact on the international stage, you just need to be good and preferably on form. If we consistently pick our best team then the World Cup will take care of itself. Over the next 3 years there will be enough chances with injuries, suspensions, fluctuations of form and Lions call-ups to examine all our options naturally, as well as playing players in the Saxons/midweek touring team and allowing them to play there way into contention properly.

robshaw4england wrote: 3. D.Cipriani ...

No, no and thrice no! - This guy is an utter tool. His off pitch behaviour is more like a primadona wendyballer, more about himself than his team. No matter how good he is on the attack his attitude stinks. I would rather see Leicester's Ford being developed over the next 12 - 18 months with plenty of Jeff time and the meat grinder of the Tiger's renowned training regime and being part of Lancaster's England - not thinking he's some marquee signing into England.

We have plenty of depth at 10 (although as mentioned in other posts) it is untried. I'd rather see them developed.

robbo277 wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:I can certainly accept the point of view that one should play one's strongest available starting XV. Ordinarily speaking I would agree with those sorts of sentiments, but I feel we're in an unusual position here.

Not only do we have some problems with key positions on the field, but in many cases we have just 1 player currently in those positions. Generally speaking one would expect a gradual feed through of younger players into a relatively experienced team, but we're not really in that position.

All i'm saying is that we have only around 30 test matches left on the calendar until we need to have a starting team and bench that virtually picks itself. We are so far away from there at the moment that time is not on our side. We need to get some experience to those identified as future stars and we need it now.

I see what you're saying as regards what we might or might not learn from the Fiji match but the more exposure the better. The majority of the '03 team was in place by this point, we're on another planet in those terms at present.

I'm not happy with Farrell being a starting FH, he's not even that experienced and already he's seen as the way forward. For me, and many others that just leaves Flood who many don't exactly consider to be a world beater.

Likewise at hooker where Hartley has been steady but relatively unimpressive, can we afford to go into a home RWC with a mediocre hooker and a FH that can't utilise a backline?

We don't have a starting team though. I'm happy with our front row (Corbs, Hartley, Cole), our half-backs (Youngs and Flood) and a few other backs (Tuilagi, Ashton and Foden), but there are serious questions about our second row, our back row, our 12 and the third member of our back three (be it a winger or a full back). Pick the players we know will be there and then pick the best players in the other positions against Fiji, and see how we go from there. If we decide that Twelvetrees and Wade are our best options at 12 and 11, then we play them and we play them outside Flood (yes, he is our best 10 for now and the foreseeable future - you may not be sure but I am), not Farrell or Burns. That way we can see how these players will fit into our best team. Same with the second row, if we try out Robson because we think he's our best second row and he's calling the line-out, then he should have the best forwards around him. What if we pick Robson and also rest Hartley and Tom Youngs ends up throwing every line-out two meters over his jumper's head? Robson looks like he's led a poor line-out, when it might not be his fault.

Right now there are too many question marks in our team to start experimenting with the players we know.

I don't like this "30 games" argument either. 30 games to what? The World Cup? Our best back at the 2011 World Cup went in with 2/3 caps and, just a year before the tournament, I laughed when his club coach suggested he'd make the England World Cup squad (shows what I know!) Chris Ashton also scored something like 9 tries in his first 9 International appearances. You don't need tons of experience to make an impact on the international stage, you just need to be good and preferably on form. If we consistently pick our best team then the World Cup will take care of itself. Over the next 3 years there will be enough chances with injuries, suspensions, fluctuations of form and Lions call-ups to examine all our options naturally, as well as playing players in the Saxons/midweek touring team and allowing them to play there way into contention properly.

Agree broadly with all this and particularly with the bold bit.

I will add that in RWC2003 it was Josh Lewsey who came into the side and was a massive boon to our backline.

I will go further and pose this question - while you want a largely settled and experienced side for a RWC - is it not an advantage to bring in (late) a winger or two on a hot run of try scoring form?

The opposition wont have done heaps of homework on the player and the player wont be succeptible to "second season syndrome".

Worth thinking about i reckon

The thing about Haskell at 8 is that he simply does not offer the same close-quarters carrying impact of Morgan and Waldrom (when on form). Nobody can doubt Haskell's physicality, but when it comes to carrying he's more of a leg pumper than an explosive hole-puncher, which is what the England 8 are generally lacking, and why Morgan was so refreshing in the 6 Nations.

People talk about Morgan and Waldrom's fitness, and I don't disagree that it's an area where they can both improve. But let's not lose sight of why these guys are in the team - to do what they do best.....carry the ball and make yards! In a properly balanced backrow you can accomodate a guy who's workrate round the park isn't top notch provided he is making those yards and getting you on the front foot.

As such, assuming everyone's fit and on form, I would pick two '6.5's' in Robshaw and Croft on the flanks (albeit '6.5's' in different ways) and then make a straight form-based choice between Morgan and Waldrom for the starting 8 spot, with Haskell taking the bench spot for his versatility and his physical impact late in a game.

It seems England have a lot of different options in the backrow, it's just finding the right balance as they all seem to be around the same ability. I've been thinking about this and now feel our best backrow would be 6 Croft, 7 Robshaw and 8 Morgan (when properly fit).

Zander, agree.

What Robshaw lacks in breakdown specialism, Croft bolsters with his speed and ability on the floor which aren't quite those of a 7, but better than your average 6. What he lacks in speed and linking ability Croft makes up for with his preference to carry in the wider channels.

Similarly, what Croft lacks as a close-quarters carrier and grafter in the tight, Robshaw bolsters by being better than your average 7 in this department (where he brings his orthodox '6' skills to bear), and Morgan balances by putting in the 'battering ram' shift.

What Morgan lacks in defensive workrate both Croft and Robshaw balance by being above average (in my opinion) in this department. What he lacks as a lineout option Croft more than makes up for in his world class abilities in this area.

And Haskell provides a plan b for all 3 positions from the bench.

In theory it's a nicely balanced back row. We just need Robshaw to continue his transformation to the openside, Morgan to shed a few pounds and them all to hit form and fitness at the same time. Yeah.....just

Adam wrote:Zander, agree.

What Robshaw lacks in breakdown specialism, Croft bolsters with his speed and ability on the floor which aren't quite those of a 7, but better than your average 6. What he lacks in speed and linking ability Croft makes up for with his preference to carry in the wider channels.

Similarly, what Croft lacks as a close-quarters carrier and grafter in the tight, Robshaw bolsters by being better than your average 7 in this department (where he brings his orthodox '6' skills to bear), and Morgan balances by putting in the 'battering ram' shift.

What Morgan lacks in defensive workrate both Croft and Robshaw balance by being above average (in my opinion) in this department. What he lacks as a lineout option Croft more than makes up for in his world class abilities in this area.

And Haskell provides a plan b for all 3 positions from the bench.

In theory it's a nicely balanced back row. We just need Robshaw to continue his transformation to the openside, Morgan to shed a few pounds and them all to hit form and fitness at the same time. Yeah.....just

Good points!

I think that backrow is the reason we did as well as we did during this year's Six Nations. As you say, Morgan needs to loose a bit of weight so that he can make more regular carries, hopefully Gloucester will sort that out.

Correct this is our best outfit for the backrow.

I would like S.Armitage to be in the mix for 7 as well but que sera sera as they say in France.

Let's plan for the best possible outcomes in performance and select players for what they can do not what they cannot do.

This philosophy requires a ball playing 12 and an attacking back 3.

BRING IT OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!

p. s

Morgan is so much more than a battering ram. The guy is elusively quick, covers back brilliantly down the lines for kicks, has good feet and excellent hands.

I agree , assuming the injured two come back to fitness, and the fat one gets fit, Englands back row unit should be Croft, Robshaw Haskell and Morgan and really you could easily start any 3 of those.

Just my 2 cents:
1. D.Attwood - yeah probably, despite the Bath fans love affair with penalty machine Caldwell it was Attwood who looked good in the Bath engine room. Will need to continue his development early next season (Gold should help).
2. S.Armitage - possibly though his age and playing in France won't help. I like that he's been playing 8 on Toloun ball so he can carry from the base of the scrum and he does seem to be at his peak now.
3. D.Cipriani - no.
4. Billy Twelvetrees - only if he can prove he's consistent, if he can do that he could do well for England. Needs to master how to run a defensive line.
5. Miles Benjamin - at the minute no. If he improves at Tigers then he could be a contender.
6. Jamie George - at the minute no. Despite being one hell of a prospect he is the third choice at this club behind an out of sorts Brits and a largely past it Smit. He needs to kick on and get regular action if he wants to be considered, same for Tom Youngs.

Adam that is a good summarisation of the 6N backrow but for me Morgan is looking to be a bit hit and miss. He needs to lose a lot of that stomach and really show that explosive carrying of his more often. There are 8s with much bigger engines and good carrying skills in the tight (most noteably Crane but also Fearns if he can get fit and find form) looking to re-emerge next season as well as Waldrom and Guest also offering the average work rate and big ball carrier combo. I can't see Waldrom or Guest getting many more/any caps without injuries but Morgan needs to step up as the longer he leaves a question mark over the shirt the more Kvesic (who can also play 8 and may well do for Wuss with Abbott at 7) and Gray (LI) will continue to develop.

Here's the thing though guys, it is accepted wisdom that you need a team with considerable international experience to seriously challenge at a world cup. That has been translated by some experts as having in the region of 50 caps average per player.

You're right Robbo277 you don't need tons of international experience to make an impact on the international stage as a player. What you need as a TEAM is experience. Likewise Tri, no one and least of all me is claiming that the team is cemented come what may, there will always be room for the form player here and there but not right across the board!

You've said yourself that individuals should be introduced into a settled team and allowed to develop. How does that tally with 'consistently picking the form players'? If that were the case we'd have a procession of players with a handful of caps.

What i'm talking about is more fundamental than the odd one or two players, we are talking here about a serious lack of experience and quality of depth in some key positions.

I revert back to my previous proposition: it's England v SA and following in a week's time England v NZ - Toby Flood has been injured in the Australia game and Dylan Hartley is banned. Where are we?! We're looking at starting Tom Youngs/Rob Webber or Freddie Burns/George Ford for their first internationals against the top two sides in the world.

"Let's plan for the best possible outcomes in performance and select players for what they can do not what they cannot do"

Agree 100%

"Morgan is so much more than a battering ram"

Agree, but as above, what Morgan can do that other options (Haskell) can't (and an area where the English forwards in general have seemed lacking) is make those explosive carries into traffic to get attacks on the front foot. For all the talk of his deficiencies, the real focus should be on getting him doing this as often as possible and selecting a balanced backrow to allow him to do so.

"This philosophy requires a ball playing 12 and an attacking back 3."

Maybe, although I'd argue that we have the latter and just need to get good attacking ball in their hands - which might be the job of a ball-playing 12, or just a more attacking 10. As we saw with Tindall's successful introduction into the centres in the 2010 6 nations, releasing a back 3 isn't necessarily down to the creative skills of your centres - it can be just as dependent on their ability to win the midfield collisions so that 10, 11, 14 and 15 have an attacking platform.

I agree on the back-row points: 6. Croft 7. Robshaw 8. Morgan 20. Haskell looks to be our best and most balanced set up going forward.

What is interesting to note as well is that we have Fearns, as someone mentioned above who could do very well at 8 and Wood who is also an excellent prospect who could come in and fill Robshaw's shoes and perhaps Croft's to a lesser extent and lose little of the balance.

That lot need to get some serious and settled game time together and it could be, along with the front row and very strong building block on which to build a world class side.

The only caveat I would add is that I think we need to find a real carrier in the second row to complement that back-row to it's fullest extent.

Chjw131 wrote:Here's the thing though guys, it is accepted wisdom that you need a team with considerable international experience to seriously challenge at a world cup. That has been translated by some experts as having in the region of 50 caps average per player.

You're right Robbo277 you don't need tons of international experience to make an impact on the international stage as a player. What you need as a TEAM is experience. Likewise Tri, no one and least of all me is claiming that the team is cemented come what may, there will always be room for the form player here and there but not right across the board!

You've said yourself that individuals should be introduced into a settled team and allowed to develop. How does that tally with 'consistently picking the form players'? If that were the case we'd have a procession of players with a handful of caps.

What i'm talking about is more fundamental than the odd one or two players, we are talking here about a serious lack of experience and quality of depth in some key positions.

I revert back to my previous proposition: it's England v SA and following in a week's time England v NZ - Toby Flood has been injured in the Australia game and Dylan Hartley is banned. Where are we?! We're looking at starting Tom Youngs/Rob Webber or Freddie Burns/George Ford for their first internationals against the top two sides in the world.

No they'll have got game time off the bench against Fiji (if it's close they'll prob get about 10 mins if we get a big margin then I imagine more like 20). Then Flood gets injured against Oz so Farrel comes on for him and gets more experience like wise Hartley gets yellowed so Youngs gets more time.

We should start our best players in every capped match we can, to do anything else devalues the shirt.

So you'd be happy to start Webber in an international now given that he's made two appearances from the bench for the sum total of about 23 minutes of top flight rugby?

yappysnap

We should start our best players in every capped match we can, to do anything else devalues the shirt.

I totlay agree with you there 100% . But we should also not be affraid to drop some of our best players if they are not on form. No player should keep his shirt, if he is not on form or fully fit.

It is a bit weird to think how different the English back row is from last year. Wood, Haskell, Easter was the back row against us last year. Now none of those guys are starters. Obviously Easter is out of the question, but the other two guys will challenge for a starting place (Haskell already might have taken the 6 shirt). Croft, Robshaw and Morgan are probably the starters, but they are really going to be pushed by Haskell/Wood. Crane as well next season, and Fearns. It is a nice situation to be in, but also a difficult one.

It might be difficult for England to come up with the best combination of those guys. They are all pretty talented IMO and if England get this right, they could have one very powerful back row that is up there with the best of them. Could someone maybe do an analysis on some of the back row options, to see who is best at what and who might gel in the right combination?

Also, if you had to pick the three best individual players (the most talented guys of the group) who would you pick? Disregarding the fact that they might not gel properly. Might be interesting to see who is picked here.

Its all big questions though isnt it....

1) How will Croft, Wood , Crane etc play after their injuries..will they hit form quickly or will they be shades of themselves...only seeing them in a few games will tell.

2) Can Morgan and indeed Fearns get some serious conditioning at Gloucester / Bath ...or will that remain a problem for them?

3) Can Farrell improve his attacking play with Saracens...and indeed will he play at 10 or be shuffled out to 13 again.

4) Will Twelvetrees find the consistency of his ability with regular gametime...or will he be another saviour of English rugby that just slips away into the void of averageness...

5) Can someone in the second row really earn the shirt - Attwood, Garvey .....whoever...

6) Can the young pretenders actually nail the starting positions at their clubs before making a claim for England - the Hookers ( Lindsay , Youngs, George) - the FH's (Burns, Ford) - The Centres ( Daly, Joseph, Trinder) - The wingers (Wade, May, Benjamin, Thompstone...)

7) Can we actually show some kind of game plan.....

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Also, if you had to pick the three best individual players (the most talented guys of the group) who would you pick? Disregarding the fact that they might not gel properly. Might be interesting to see who is picked here.

6. Croft
7. Wood
8. Morgan

These guys are clearly very natural players, whereas I'd say Robshaw is more of a grafter, he's worked really hard to develop him game and get to where he is now. He hasn't necessarily displayed innate ability from a young age. But when balance is considered Robshaw would come into the actual side.

Yeah I was just interested to see who people would list as the most talented individuals. I knew Croft would be there, and I had a feeling Morgan would be mentioned also. Interesting that Wood is mentioned, I only know Wood from last year in the 6 nations and was impressed by him. He seems rather similar to Croft but with less flash and more grit, would that be right?

Adam wrote:"Let's plan for the best possible outcomes in performance and select players for what they can do not what they cannot do"

Agree 100%

"Morgan is so much more than a battering ram"

Agree, but as above, what Morgan can do that other options (Haskell) can't (and an area where the English forwards in general have seemed lacking) is make those explosive carries into traffic to get attacks on the front foot. For all the talk of his deficiencies, the real focus should be on getting him doing this as often as possible and selecting a balanced backrow to allow him to do so.

"This philosophy requires a ball playing 12 and an attacking back 3."

Maybe, although I'd argue that we have the latter and just need to get good attacking ball in their hands - which might be the job of a ball-playing 12, or just a more attacking 10. As we saw with Tindall's successful introduction into the centres in the 2010 6 nations, releasing a back 3 isn't necessarily down to the creative skills of your centres - it can be just as dependent on their ability to win the midfield collisions so that 10, 11, 14 and 15 have an attacking platform.

Under Johno we had a real issue with securing quick ball...yet with Flood at the helm we still managed to be creative...and get Ashton running the lines that he does so well...and supporting players. Thats his real ability...and we are just not using it remotely...which is why he is getting the unwarranted criticsm.

Now under Lancaster...we are suddenly producing quick ball...but are doing feic all with it because we have kick happy Farrell at 10.
Our back 3 options are great....Foden, Brown, (Goode) running it back from FB all day long...Strettle should be overlooked with May, Wade, Ojo etc brought in...even Monye as wingers who can either use power and pace or elusiveness to weave their magic...and then ashton running those brilliant lines and his world class support play...

We just need someone like Flood who can take advantage of that quick ball at use the ball...this might even bring more out of Barritt offensively...

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Yeah I was just interested to see who people would list as the most talented individuals. I knew Croft would be there, and I had a feeling Morgan would be mentioned also. Interesting that Wood is mentioned, I only know Wood from last year in the 6 nations and was impressed by him. He seems rather similar to Croft but with less flash and more grit, would that be right?

Yeah that's probably a decent simple evaluation of Wood. He could be described as a bit of a Croft/Robshaw hybrid. Croft's lineout ability, pace (not quite) and link play combined with Robshaw's ground work and tackling. He's a purist's player, one that does everything very well physically and technically. He has all the attributes to be a serious force on the international stage, he just needs to stay fit and string a few performances together to fulfil some of this potential.

Rory,

I would say the following...(my opinion others may disagree with)

1) Croft - Serious pace, lineout expert, weaker in the ruck and tight stuff than maybe most other 6's, but Crofts speed gets him to rucks quick where is at his best as a disrupter of quick ball rather than powering turnovers.

2) Wood - A quality alrounder, a similar build to Croft. More physical and gritty as you have said...very strong in the lineout, but also very strong in the tight work and ruck and mauls. There was talk that if fit he was going to be the captain instead of Robshaw...Could he be our Juan Smith...? We are concerned with his injury proness though.

3) Morgan - Big powerful No.8 who's real strength is powerful carrying and link play. He has big question marks over his fitness though, to last 80 mins.

4) Waldrom - See Morgan above...but despite his fat appearance is actually pretty damn fit. Not great at the coal face stuff...but will always get you on the front foot ball in hand.

5) Haskell - Massive powerful guy, excellent with ball in hand. Has had lables of lacking a rugby brain giving away needless penalties at the breakdown etc...but has matured and i think he is now very strong in that area also. Was monstrous in the last test v SA where his power really stood up to the Boks.

6) Fearns - Another big powerful guy (6'3 and about 18+st. )He is a power player, making hard yards, big tackles and very very good at the breakdown. Can play 6,7 and 8...but many think 8 should be his position. However the same lable as Morgan in that his fitness has been questoned...due in part to lack of gametime at bath. He should play more this season.

7) Robshaw - An engine on legs. He is perpetual motion, an excellent tackler and improving daily at the breakdown shown that he is probably England first choice 7 now regardless of Captaincy. A minor lineout option also but not in the league of Croft or Wood.

8) Tom Johnson - Another with a great workrate, solid in the tackle and actually good with ball in hand. Did some good work at the breakdown...but SA was a real baptism of fire.

9) Steffon Armitage - Openside playing in Toulon. Built like a prop he is Super 14 player of the year. Excellent at the breakdown, and a tank with ball in hand. His appearance belies his fitness...where he has apparently played some attacking scrums at 8 for his pick up and drive...Always brings out mixed opinions within the England fans.

10) Crane - Leicester No.8 (similar in style i guess to Easter) who is strong alround...never fails to make the yards, strong at the breakdown and coalface stuff. But is disliked by many because he doesnt do flashy stuff or have rapid pace....

Thats probably the main contenders at the moment. There are youngsters coming through...but they will need some good performances this season to push in...

Geordie - thank you very much for taking the time to describe the options available to England. To be honest, the guy who sticks out for me in that list is Wood where you describe him as a "Juan Smith" type. I have been impressed with him in the past and I will be very interested to see him more in the future. I think he might eliminate the need for either Croft or Robshaw honestly, in terms of playing style. He seems to offer both what Croft does and what Robshaw does.

Haskell was indeed a monstrous figure against SA in my opinion. He definitely made a difference, and made a huge number of tackles and the sheer physicality he offered was huge. As for Robshaw, well he is a real worker isn't he. I think Crane is a similar type of player in that he does the work needed in the tight exchanges but isn't flashy.

Hard to see who will really make it in that list. A huge number of options, but no obvious choices yet. That isn't to say none of them are standout players, but they all offer different qualities and picking the right combination might be tricky. It will be interesting to see how things end up.

1) Croft – our only world class player, has to start.

2) Wood – would’ve been our 1st choice 7 before his injury(ies), can’t see what’s changed.

3) Morgan – really enjoy his 2 rollicking charges per game, not so keen on taking the next 60 mins to recover. He’s currently not a serious test player, he’s had 2 series to excel but has got worse. Either send him back to his club for the season for some serious fitness work, or only use him as an impact player off the bench for the last 20.

4) Waldrom good stop-gap option

5) Haskell – continue to develop him as our 1st choice no 8, just needs to improve his control in the scrum (which he was doing).

6) Fearns – excellent potential, but has to lose that gut, even his team mates are hiding the pies.

7) Robshaw – has exceeded my expectations, but still lacks a bit of pace and instinctive rugby skills. Good option though.

8) Tom Johnson – see no. 4 and 7.

9) Steffon Armitage – would love to see him given another chance. Just can’t see SL making the exception.

10) Crane – who knows, always a bit worried about long lay-offs. Is he just a young Waldrom? Still, a good option.

So that’s Croft, Wood and Haskell (with Morgan on the bench along with a utility BR/SR). Robshaw on stand-by.

Got to say that list shows an impressive depth.

the guy who sticks out for me in that list is Wood where you describe him as a "Juan Smith" type. I have been impressed with him in the past and I will be very interested to see him more in the future. I think he might eliminate the need for either Croft or Robshaw honestly, in terms of playing style. He seems to offer both what Croft does and what Robshaw does.

Whilst his style is somewhere in the middle of Croft and Robshaw I wouldn't say Wood offers what both do Rory. Wood stays very close into the rucks and the mauls, he rarely strays into the backline and is not often seen as the link man. This was best seen against Ireland in Johnno's last 6N. The Hask, Wood and Easter were all to close into the breakdown and so always arrived second to a wide breakdown to find the covering backs (remember no Manu at this point) being tackled near the gainline and blasted off the ball by their Irish counter parts.

Whilst Wood is a talent do not underestimate how much the sweeping defence of Croft and his ability to slow ball down was missed on the tour to SA. Likewise Robshaw made himself a nightmare at the breakdown against the Boks and there aren't many flankers who would have the confidence or ability to stand at first receiver regularly for their club.

Until Haskell and Fearns can be a little smarter at the breakdown I'd leave both to their clubs and select the previously mentioned flankers with one of Morgan, Waldrom and perhaps Crane (depending on injury) at 8.

10) Crane – who knows, always a bit worried about long lay-offs. Is he just a young Waldrom? Still, a good option.

A young Waldrom? A number 8 style Robshaw perhaps but there is no comparing Waldrom and Crane. Their styles at 8 could not be more different irrelevent of whether they are stop gaps or not. Waldrom is all about the carrying and the angles and Crane is all about the graft and the grunt work. Interestingly enough Crane has the better footballing skills (particularly kicking) due to him combining his early rugby career with playing in goal for the West Brom academy.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:
7) Robshaw – has exceeded my expectations, but still lacks a bit of pace and instinctive rugby skills. Good option though.

Lacks instinctive rugby skill? Thats what Robshaw has in abundance, his nous around the park and work rate sets him apart from the rest.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:1) Croft – our only world class player, has to start.

2) Wood – would’ve been our 1st choice 7 before his injury(ies), can’t see what’s changed.

3) Morgan – really enjoy his 2 rollicking charges per game, not so keen on taking the next 60 mins to recover. He’s currently not a serious test player, he’s had 2 series to excel but has got worse. Either send him back to his club for the season for some serious fitness work, or only use him as an impact player off the bench for the last 20.

4) Waldrom good stop-gap option

5) Haskell – continue to develop him as our 1st choice no 8, just needs to improve his control in the scrum (which he was doing).

6) Fearns – excellent potential, but has to lose that gut, even his team mates are hiding the pies.

7) Robshaw – has exceeded my expectations, but still lacks a bit of pace and instinctive rugby skills. Good option though.

8) Tom Johnson – see no. 4 and 7.

9) Steffon Armitage – would love to see him given another chance. Just can’t see SL making the exception.

10) Crane – who knows, always a bit worried about long lay-offs. Is he just a young Waldrom? Still, a good option.

So that’s Croft, Wood and Haskell (with Morgan on the bench along with a utility BR/SR). Robshaw on stand-by.

Got to say that list shows an impressive depth.

Thats four Number 8's...

Equo Troiano wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:1) Croft – our only world class player, has to start.

2) Wood – would’ve been our 1st choice 7 before his injury(ies), can’t see what’s changed.

3) Morgan – really enjoy his 2 rollicking charges per game, not so keen on taking the next 60 mins to recover. He’s currently not a serious test player, he’s had 2 series to excel but has got worse. Either send him back to his club for the season for some serious fitness work, or only use him as an impact player off the bench for the last 20.

4) Waldrom good stop-gap option

5) Haskell – continue to develop him as our 1st choice no 8, just needs to improve his control in the scrum (which he was doing).

6) Fearns – excellent potential, but has to lose that gut, even his team mates are hiding the pies.

7) Robshaw – has exceeded my expectations, but still lacks a bit of pace and instinctive rugby skills. Good option though.

8) Tom Johnson – see no. 4 and 7.

9) Steffon Armitage – would love to see him given another chance. Just can’t see SL making the exception.

10) Crane – who knows, always a bit worried about long lay-offs. Is he just a young Waldrom? Still, a good option.

So that’s Croft, Wood and Haskell (with Morgan on the bench along with a utility BR/SR). Robshaw on stand-by.

Got to say that list shows an impressive depth.

Thats four Number 8's...

It's just a shame we can't find one who is not injured or fit enough to last a full 80 mins (except maybe Waldrom but he is not a long term option)...

Crane – meant that he may be, like Waldrom, a good club player but perhaps not quite good enough to start for England when all our options are available. Not sure though; he didn’t impress when Jonno gave him a chance, he’s since had a fairly long-term injury, so time will tell. Would be happy to see him press for selection.

Robshaw – his work rate is not in question, and he’s certainly developed well as a test player. But has he got the skills required of a top class no 7? More so than Wood? As a 6 Croft has more class, as a 7 I’d like England to have a player with more pace and greater technical skills at the tackle/breakdown/ruck.

Good depth/potential at 6 and 8. Less so at 7.