England summer tour of Argentina

First topic message reminder :

Updated prior to Consur XV game:

Forwards (18)
Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby, 2 caps)
Rob Buchanan (Harlequins, uncapped)
Calum Clark (Northampton Saints, uncapped)
Alex Corbisiero (London Irish, 18 caps)
Paul Doran Jones (Northampton Saints, 4 caps)
Tom Johnson (Exeter Chiefs, 5 caps)
Matt Kvesic (Worcester Warriors, uncapped)
Joe Launchbury (London Wasps, 9 caps)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 20 caps)
Joe Marler (Harlequins, 10 caps)
Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby, 10 caps)
David Paice (London Irish, 6 caps)
Ed Slater (Leicester Tigers, uncapped)
Henry Thomas (Sale Sharks, uncapped)
Billy Vunipola (London Wasps, uncapped)
Rob Webber (Bath Rugby, 3 caps)
David Wilson (Bath Rugby, 26 caps)
Tom Wood (Northampton Saints, captain, 18 caps)

Backs (14)
Mike Brown (Harlequins, 16 caps)
Freddie Burns (Gloucester Rugby, 1 cap)
Lee Dickson (Northampton Saints, 7 caps)
Kyle Eastmond (Bath Rugby, uncapped)
Ben Foden (Northampton Saints, 30 caps)
Alex Goode (Saracens, 11 caps)
Jonathan Joseph (London Irish, 4 caps)
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby, uncapped)
David Strettle (Saracens, 13 caps)
Joel Tomkins (Saracens, uncapped)
Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester Rugby, 4 caps)
Christian Wade (London Wasps, uncapped)
Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens, 12 caps)
Marland Yarde (London Irish, uncapped)

With Kearnan Myall and Haydn Thomas added to the squad for the Barbarians game.

Sides for the Consur XV game - KO 19.30

England: Ben Foden (Northampton Saints); Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby), Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints), Kyle Eastmond (Bath Rugby), David Strettle (Saracens); Stephen Myler (Northampton Saints), Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens); Joe Marler (Harlequins); David Paice (London Irish); Henry Thomas (Sale Sharks); Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints); Kearnan Myall (Unattached); Tom Wood (Northampton Saints, captain); Tom Johnson (Exeter Chiefs), Billy Vunipola (London Wasps)

Replacements: Rob Buchanan (Harlequins), Alex Corbisiero (London Irish), Paul Doran Jones (Northampton Saints), Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby), Matt Kvesic (Worcester Warriors) 21 Lee Dickson (Northampton Saints), Freddie Burns (Gloucester Rugby), Jonathan Joseph (London Irish)

CONSUR XV: Tomás Carrió (Argentina); Belisario Agulla (Argentina), Francisco Sansot (Argentina), Juan Socino (Argentina), Leandro Leivas (Uruguay); Benjamín Madero (Argentina), Tomás Cubelli -C- (Argentina), Bruno Postiglioni (Argentina), Arturo Ávalo (Uruguay), Mario Sagario (Uruguay), Cesar Fruttero (Argentina), Pablo Huete (Chile), Tomás de la Vega (Argentina), Javier Ortega Desio (Argentina), Antonio Ahualli (Argentina)

Replacements: Alejo Corral (Uruguay), Óscar Durán (Uruguay), Nicolás Klapenbach (Uruguay), Diego Magno (Uruguay), Juan Gaminara (Uruguay), Agustín Ormaechea(Uruguay), Mosiés Duque (Brasil), Santiago Gbernau (Uruguay)

http://www.espn.co.uk/england/rugby/story/184014.html

The game contains plenty of developing players on both sides who won't have played together much so should be interesting. From an England perspective I can't to see how Foden does back in the 15 shirt and also really looking forward to Jonny May getting a chance on the wing as I've been pushing for him to be selected all season (and before that even!).

To be completely honest I know little about most of the Consur XV players but as a Tigers fan I'm looking forward to seeing Horacio Agulla's younger brother Belisario on the right wing. I always rated Horacio very highly and enjoyed his style of play so I'm hoping for much the same from Belisario!

formerly known as Sam wrote:He's shown up very well in the big games since xmas, he shone against Toulon and ripped through Quins today. He's also considerably more versatile than the other options. We've seen him play 13 in a rwc final, he can play wing as well and he did a fair stand in at 12 for the second half against LI. Got to be a great bench option that.

Parling doesn't get the credit he deserves for his work rate, he doesn't make the big hits/carries/turnovers and so seems to be overlooked.

Tait wobbled at times against Toulouse in the snow - but ever since has just got better and better. I do suspect that his time with England has gone, but at 27 he is still too young to write off completely.

As to Parling - aye he is an understated player. Does not do the flashy things but does go out and make the tackles, hits the rucks, carries when needed and has decent hands. The sort of player fans overlook - but coaches and fellow players love to have around. If he was in the back row we might say he is a bit like Richard hill - doing the unseen, unglamourous work

Tait can cover those positions but to his detriment I think, he's always struggled to nail a position. He's looked good ball in hand but very ropey defensively & positionally at times. As I said, another 6 months of improved performances may see him in with a shout.

Parling is a decent option but will never be a top class lock, he's too underpowered despite being a work horse. I just see him as a stop gap internationally until we find somebody better.

You're just bitter he had to leave you guys and come south to fulfill his potential

Not bitter fair play to the lad, he's got a few caps under his belt despite having limited ability tbh. Bit of a similar story with Dowson, both solid pro's but not exactly what we need going forward.

A bit unfair to compare parling to dowson he was England's best player in cardiff and got picked for the lions ahead of some fairly decent players.
He looked at ease in test rugby from his first cap and you can't say that about too many locks in the recent past,Ben Kay was the last who looked comfortable from debut.
Parling has 17 caps it took tom palmer roughly 7 years to gain that many.Louis deacon looked lost and uninterested in his first 15 caps until he got the confidence to believe he belonged on the test stage.
Nick Kennedy was another good player7 caps and never looked like he could cut it.,and then there's borthwick 57 caps and never broke the gain line.

Dowson at his best was a really smart rugby player let down by a complete lack of pace.

He was under-rated, then finally picked by Lancaster when well past his best and widely castigated.

Parling is a class lock, he won't reach Matfield levels but he's what England need in the 5 shirt until the next RWC. He offers what the other English locks don't, a savvy lineout caller who does the dog work so the flashy options of Lawes and Launchbury can do the big hits and big runs.

Post RWC we need to look to other options but for the next couple of years he will help develop our lineout and help us compete.

Past the lineout all Parling does is tackle quite well, he's a fairly average player really but we just lack any kind of lineout forward (Borthwick, Robson etc all not Int standard).

If one of Attwood, Launchbury can learn to lead the line Parling will be out as he's just not good enough going forward.

I'm not saying there's a cue of top locks Parling is keeping out, he's just the best of a very average bunch.

It isn't just the line-out that Parling is strong in, he's very good at the set piece full stop. He calls the line-out, is a strong jumper in attack or defence anywhere needed, controls mauls well from front or back and is also very good in the scrum. Add in that he makes lots of tackles, hits rucks hard and carries effectively and he's a very useful player especially in such a young side.

He's the perfect foil for some of the other young locks we have coming through IMO. Especially if Launchberry naturally fills out in the next couple of years making him even more effective in contact.

4.Slater, Atwood
5.Parling, Launchberry

I'd be pretty happy with those options going forward - especially if Lawes can kick on and improve his all round game.

king_carlos wrote:It isn't just the line-out that Parling is strong in, he's very good at the set piece full stop. He calls the line-out, is a strong jumper in attack or defence anywhere needed, controls mauls well from front or back and is also very good in the scrum. Add in that he makes lots of tackles, hits rucks hard and carries effectively and he's a very useful player especially in such a young side.

He's the perfect foil for some of the other young locks we have coming through IMO. Especially if Launchberry naturally fills out in the next couple of years making him even more effective in contact.

4.Slater, Atwood
5.Parling, Launchberry

I'd be pretty happy with those options going forward - especially if Lawes can kick on and improve his all round game.

I think a lot depends on how Slater and/or Attwood go in the upcoming games, but I agree largely with what you are saying. I think that's a better balance, with Parling OR Launchberry at the moment, with Parling ahead for now.

Slater won't be available for the Barbarians game, so going with Attwood and Launchberry could be a good way to go for that game (with Lawes on the bench if Sarries win today), and a strong performance could see Attwood cement his place for the tests.

I agree Lawes hasn't been at his best for a while and if Attwood and Slater go well he could drop into the Saxons. He shouldn't be completely discarded, but we do have other options and no-one deserves an automatic spot.

I can't agree on the comments regarding Parling Carlos.

I don't think he carries well at all, no idea where you got that from. I don't think he scrummages well either with his side often struggling. I don't think he makes much effect on rucks and doesn't threaten the opp throw as much as he should.

He is pretty solid on his own throw and an effective low tackler, I just think we need more than that.

I know he's a bit on the small side but I think James Elliott deserves a saxons spot next season after his exploits this year.

Just watched the highlights & noticed Woods playing 7.If he has a good tour could we see a backrow of 6 Croft 7 Woods 8 Morgan?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I can't agree on the comments regarding Parling Carlos.

I don't think he carries well at all, no idea where you got that from. I don't think he scrummages well either with his side often struggling. I don't think he makes much effect on rucks and doesn't threaten the opp throw as much as he should.

He is pretty solid on his own throw and an effective low tackler, I just think we need more than that.

Parling is joint top of the lineout steals stat in the AP this season, from much fewer matches than anyone else.

It will be interesting to see what part Parling plays in Oz....

As for the Argentina tour...
4 Launchbury
5 Attwood
6 Wood

Would give a powerful engine room...whilst keeping athleticsim and lineout ability.

Parling is pretty quick so tends to make some good carries late in the game when it opens up and the defence is tiring. He's not one to knock defenders in the close channels backwards though, and we really missed having someone who could do that after Morgan's injury.

Parling's got a tremendous attitude to go with his all-round skill set. I remember his interview after the opening Six Nations game against Scotland (you know, the one where we actually scored some tries?). Instead of relishing the win, he was more focused on making amendments for getting bumped by Beattie in the tackle.

Brilliant attitude, and I hope he continues to play for England for a long long time, because that sort of mentality will rub off on others in the squad.

So, 1st up game for the squad will be against a strong BaaBaas team -
Need to pick side excluding Tigers and Saints players -
My preference would be -

Corbis
Webber
Wilson
Launchbury
Attwood
T,Johnson
Kvesic
Morgan
Wigglesworth
F.Burns
Wade
Twelvetrees
Tompkins
May
Brown

Without the Northants and Tigers players we are a little light on Back-row and Lock alternatives. (Lawes, Wood, Clarke, Slater, Foden, Dickson unavailable)

Expect Billy Vaunipola to make appearance from bench. Might have to draft in a few players not originally included in squad.
Maybe Fraser or Wallace etc. Maybe George Robson or Kitchener as a 1 off.

Broadland boy - Not sure I want Croft and Wood in the same back row!
seems to lack a bit of grunt - even with Morgan in the middle.

I think the same was discussed a few years back - Croft and Wood were/are still seen as very similar players.

LondonTiger wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I can't agree on the comments regarding Parling Carlos.

I don't think he carries well at all, no idea where you got that from. I don't think he scrummages well either with his side often struggling. I don't think he makes much effect on rucks and doesn't threaten the opp throw as much as he should.

He is pretty solid on his own throw and an effective low tackler, I just think we need more than that.

Parling is joint top of the lineout steals stat in the AP this season, from much fewer matches than anyone else.

Well he's failed to carry this onto the Int scene. We had the worst lineout stats in the 6N also.

timhen wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:Some strong arguments about the make-up of the BR going forward that's for certain.

I actually tend to agree with the idea that Robshaw's place is vulnerable. It is right to say that but for injury, Wood would have been Captain from the start of Lancs term. Robshaw has done very well in his role and his work-rate has been outstanding but he isn't a stand-out sort of player in any specific role. I think had he kept to 6 he might well have been.

The problem really comes down to balance as GF highlighted. This I think is Lancaster's dream team BR:

6. T Croft
7. C Clark
8. T Wood (c)

It's only speculation I grant you but he sees Clark as a 7, Croft as his line-out king and Wood as an invaluable captain. To me it's a terrifyingly poor BR and in reality I think even Lancs is coming round to the idea that it doesn't work.

Getting Croft involved is the problem. I think you need to look at the back 5 as a whole to get Croft in. Here's a possible solution:

4. D Attwood
5. C Lawes
6. T Croft
7. T Wood
8. B Morgan

With Croft leading the line-out that could be very effective around the park and in the line-out, a crucial set-piece.

Someone said above that Haskell was moved to 7 to accommodate Wood at 6. That's not strictly true, it was a toss-up between who wore 6 and 7 and if you look at the work Wood does at the breakdown, his turn-over rate and his speed to breakdowns around the park he could play as an extremely effective 7 at international level.

Can't agree with this conclusion. It's been stated in interviews that Johnson is the man set to play out of his usual position as the other 7, with Clark going as a 6. Lancaster also clearly considers Morgan and Vunipola as 8s over Wood, Lancaster has stated he'd given the 8 spot to Vunipola when Morgan got injured and only played Wood there when Vunipola got injured in training. When it comes to blindside he also seems to prefer Wood to Croft, having selected Wood over Croft when they've both been available (in terms of the lineout issue you raise regarding these two, yes Croft is the better jumper, but Wood is a pretty good jumper and also often runs the Saints lineout, which Croft doesn't do for Tigers, meaning Lancatser is able to go for his preference of a more impact type lock on the bench who isn't a lineout specialist).

timenh, I would just draw your attention to the second part of my sentence which you have picked out in bold. Lancaster's wake-up to the purely athletic pack came in that Wales game.

What I have said here is partly tongue-in-cheek but has a ring of truth to it. Lancs has stated when he picked Clark way back for the EPS that he saw him as having huge potential at 7. Further, as you can see with the inclusion of Croft in that BR I was talking more generally not specifically about the Argentina tour.

Lancaster has demonstrated by picking Wood at 8 and then the full compliment of blindsides in the BR for the Wales games that he favours an athletic, high work rate BR who can use the line-out as their domination. That has failed. Incidentally Vunipola was available for that Wales game but wasn't picked. He was also available for the Italy game but also wasn't picked. There were rumours that he would've made the France bench but injured his ankle. Lancs could've picked Crane for example at 8 if neither Morgan or Vunipola were fit, which would have been a preference.

I don't know how you reach the conclusion that Lancs favours Wood over Croft. If anything I would say quite the reverse. Croft had only been back for 3 or 4 game before Lancs dropped him straight in for the Wales game. Both are superb players and they could feasibly play in the same BR with Wood at 7 but I stand by the BR I surmised was Lancs dream team. He favours Croft, Wood and Clark.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I can't agree on the comments regarding Parling Carlos.

I don't think he carries well at all, no idea where you got that from. I don't think he scrummages well either with his side often struggling. I don't think he makes much effect on rucks and doesn't threaten the opp throw as much as he should.

He is pretty solid on his own throw and an effective low tackler, I just think we need more than that.

Parling is joint top of the lineout steals stat in the AP this season, from much fewer matches than anyone else.

Well he's failed to carry this onto the Int scene. We had the worst lineout stats in the 6N also.

England's line-out in the 6N wasn't top drawer but we had a fairly chop and changed BR. With the options Parling had though he should've done better. That aside I think he's a real quality player. Who on earth said that he can't scrummage well and that his sides go backwards in the scrum?! I think someone needs to watch the AP and Tiger's scrum this season!

Paul Ackford had a bit of a pop at Parling in the Telegraph during the SA tour and I could see his point that he doesn't seem to fit the mould of an English lock forward. Rowntree responded by saying that Parling's live stats during games were the best of any English forward. His speed in making a tackle and getting back to his feet to have another effect were consistently world class.

His carrying game is not close in but he does have a knack of taking some different lines and often finds a weak shoulder and makes yards. He's certainly not the new Borthwick!

I like Parling - we need one of his ilk in the 2nd row. But for England to return to their old ways of bullying teams in the pack then sometimes there is no substitution for bulk and agression. The big fellas with ballast hitting rucks hard.

Parling doesnt seem to have that dog about him.
Launchbury I dont think has it yet either.
Attwood does
Lawes does
Slater could - but I havent seen enough of him to say yet.

Chjw131 wrote:

timhen wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:Some strong arguments about the make-up of the BR going forward that's for certain.

I actually tend to agree with the idea that Robshaw's place is vulnerable. It is right to say that but for injury, Wood would have been Captain from the start of Lancs term. Robshaw has done very well in his role and his work-rate has been outstanding but he isn't a stand-out sort of player in any specific role. I think had he kept to 6 he might well have been.

The problem really comes down to balance as GF highlighted. This I think is Lancaster's dream team BR:

6. T Croft
7. C Clark
8. T Wood (c)

It's only speculation I grant you but he sees Clark as a 7, Croft as his line-out king and Wood as an invaluable captain. To me it's a terrifyingly poor BR and in reality I think even Lancs is coming round to the idea that it doesn't work.

Getting Croft involved is the problem. I think you need to look at the back 5 as a whole to get Croft in. Here's a possible solution:

4. D Attwood
5. C Lawes
6. T Croft
7. T Wood
8. B Morgan

With Croft leading the line-out that could be very effective around the park and in the line-out, a crucial set-piece.

Someone said above that Haskell was moved to 7 to accommodate Wood at 6. That's not strictly true, it was a toss-up between who wore 6 and 7 and if you look at the work Wood does at the breakdown, his turn-over rate and his speed to breakdowns around the park he could play as an extremely effective 7 at international level.

Can't agree with this conclusion. It's been stated in interviews that Johnson is the man set to play out of his usual position as the other 7, with Clark going as a 6. Lancaster also clearly considers Morgan and Vunipola as 8s over Wood, Lancaster has stated he'd given the 8 spot to Vunipola when Morgan got injured and only played Wood there when Vunipola got injured in training. When it comes to blindside he also seems to prefer Wood to Croft, having selected Wood over Croft when they've both been available (in terms of the lineout issue you raise regarding these two, yes Croft is the better jumper, but Wood is a pretty good jumper and also often runs the Saints lineout, which Croft doesn't do for Tigers, meaning Lancatser is able to go for his preference of a more impact type lock on the bench who isn't a lineout specialist).

timenh, I would just draw your attention to the second part of my sentence which you have picked out in bold. Lancaster's wake-up to the purely athletic pack came in that Wales game.

What I have said here is partly tongue-in-cheek but has a ring of truth to it. Lancs has stated when he picked Clark way back for the EPS that he saw him as having huge potential at 7. Further, as you can see with the inclusion of Croft in that BR I was talking more generally not specifically about the Argentina tour.

Lancaster has demonstrated by picking Wood at 8 and then the full compliment of blindsides in the BR for the Wales games that he favours an athletic, high work rate BR who can use the line-out as their domination. That has failed. Incidentally Vunipola was available for that Wales game but wasn't picked. He was also available for the Italy game but also wasn't picked. There were rumours that he would've made the France bench but injured his ankle. Lancs could've picked Crane for example at 8 if neither Morgan or Vunipola were fit, which would have been a preference.

I don't know how you reach the conclusion that Lancs favours Wood over Croft. If anything I would say quite the reverse. Croft had only been back for 3 or 4 game before Lancs dropped him straight in for the Wales game. Both are superb players and they could feasibly play in the same BR with Wood at 7 but I stand by the BR I surmised was Lancs dream team. He favours Croft, Wood and Clark.

I agree with Tim regarding Clark's position and the use of Wood at 8. If Lancaster thought Clark was a future England 7, surely he'd be asking him to feature there on the Argentina tour rather than saying that another 6, Johnson -who isn't likely to retain his position in the EPS after the summer-, will be contending with Kvesic for that position.

If Lancaster favoured his entire BR being athletic, with a high work rate and strong line out ability, Morgan wouldn't have been the first choice 8 over the last season. And if he was looking to persist with Wood as an athletic 8, would he be taking 2 specialist big ball carrying 8s on tour rather than looking at more flanker options as backup for Wood's continued shift, or other more athletic 8 options like Guest? He said of Vunipola, “He was unfortunate not to get his opportunity against France. I told him he was selected and he twisted his ankle in training so it was disappointing for him to miss out", I think he's pretty serious about him & Morgan as the ongoing future at 8.

Mbernz, firstly what I was saying was partly tongue-in-cheek as I mention in my reply.

Secondly, I haven't heard Lancs make that reference to Johnson and Kvesic in the No.7 position. Lancs has mentioned Clark in that openside role before and that is supported by Clark himself "...been selected as a lock, rather than in his favoured position as an openside flanker."

And supported by "Neil Back, a great openside flanker, has stressed that Clark is the most natural and complete No7 in England".

Aside from which I also stated that Lancs has indeed come round more to the idea of a heavier-weight pack and yes Morgan has featured there prior to Wood. Let's not forget though he started with Phil Dowson there amongst Robshaw at 7 and Croft at 6.

He followed that this 6N once Morgan was injured with Wood at 8. Amongst another athletic BR and athletic lock pairing. His balance has been off and his desire for a quick and athletic pack, whilst modified with Morgan/Vunipola has been his aim. It's come unstuck and that is the overriding concern.

As I have said yes he seems to be augmenting that initial concept but let's not run away with the idea that restoring Morgan is going to solve the balance in the pack because it's not. I'm glad to see some heavy SRs in the touring squad and an excellent carrier in Kvesic to help spread the carrying load.

Nonetheless my appraisal of his initial overall philosophy represented by the BR I point to stands. He likes athletic players who can dominate I line-out.

I think his initial selection of Dowson was just because they didn't want to stick with Nick Easter, but hadn't seen enough of Morgan to know whether he was really ready. Morgan and then Waldrom have been the first choice 8s when fit ever since Lancaster's third game in charge, and, as mentioned above, he was planning to pick Vunipola against France.

Robshaw isn't the most athletic either, so I'm not sure his selection really supports the idea that Lancaster's main focus is on athleticism.

Personally,i think a back row of
6 Wood
7 Robshaw (Kvesic for the tour)
8 Morgan

Is a nicely balanced back row. You have:
Excellent ground work and grunt in the tight (Robshaw,Kvesic & Wood)
Excellent ball carrying (Kvesic and Morgan, Robshaw is a link man)
Strong Lineout (Wood, Robshaw is an option aswell)
Big tackling (All)
Leadership (Wood, Robshaw)

And judging by Crofts form you could swap him and Wood, though id rather play Wood there.

Either of these means we can play a heavyweight guy in the engine room, Attwood or Slater or Garvey or anyother big lump playing very well...and compliment him with another maybe more athletic lock or lineout guy...

4 Parling, Kitchener (My prefereance over Parling), Launchbury, Lawes
5 Attwood, Slater, Garvey, Launchbury (i think he covers both groups), Savage (if he doesnt stay at 6), Kruis

Kruis was excellent for Sarries on Sunday I thought GF

Kruis has impressed me all season mate, ill be interested to see where he eventually settles...probably not 6..it'll be 4 or 5.

I hope it's not 6 to be honest. We've got an abundance of backrow hybrids, and I think he's much better in the second row. Same with Savage! Both have a little mean streak to their game, and I like that in a lock. Big bruiser of a guy too.

Lawes was out standing against Saracens. My joint MoM with Manoa. I pray he can bring that controlled physicality to England as we'll needit against Argentina.

Kruis had a real impact when he came on and looked quality. If he can start to get rotation with Borthwick next season he could really come on very well.

As Bluestone says he's got an edge to his game along with Savage and Lawes. With Kruis running a line-out you could have 4. C Lawes 5. G Kruis or 4. E Slater 5. G Kruis which is a decent heavy-duty lock pairing.

Chjw131 wrote:Mbernz, firstly what I was saying was partly tongue-in-cheek as I mention in my reply.

Secondly, I haven't heard Lancs make that reference to Johnson and Kvesic in the No.7 position. Lancs has mentioned Clark in that openside role before and that is supported by Clark himself "...been selected as a lock, rather than in his favoured position as an openside flanker."

And supported by "Neil Back, a great openside flanker, has stressed that Clark is the most natural and complete No7 in England".

Aside from which I also stated that Lancs has indeed come round more to the idea of a heavier-weight pack and yes Morgan has featured there prior to Wood. Let's not forget though he started with Phil Dowson there amongst Robshaw at 7 and Croft at 6.

He followed that this 6N once Morgan was injured with Wood at 8. Amongst another athletic BR and athletic lock pairing. His balance has been off and his desire for a quick and athletic pack, whilst modified with Morgan/Vunipola has been his aim. It's come unstuck and that is the overriding concern.

As I have said yes he seems to be augmenting that initial concept but let's not run away with the idea that restoring Morgan is going to solve the balance in the pack because it's not. I'm glad to see some heavy SRs in the touring squad and an excellent carrier in Kvesic to help spread the carrying load.

Nonetheless my appraisal of his initial overall philosophy represented by the BR I point to stands. He likes athletic players who can dominate I line-out.

He said Johnson was going as a 7 in one of the interviews after the recent squad announcement.

He did indeed start with Dowson at 8 for his first 2 matches in charge, but with Morgan on the bench to get his first caps from there, taking over the role for the third match. That's a pretty standard way to integrate a new player to international level.

And that big ball carrier at 8 is not a new choice for him. He championed Crane whilst in charge of the Leeds academy, seeing him promoted to the senior side at only 18. He also had him as captain of the Saxons pretty much all the time he was fit and not with the senior squad. His backrow for the Saxons that won the 2011 Churchill Cup -his last team before taking over the senior side- was Gaskell, Johnson (at 7) & Crane. Only Gaskell of those 3 could be described as the athletic line out type BR player you are suggesting he prefers. And his lock pairing for those games were Attwood & Botha, again, hardly quick and athletic.

I think you're joining dots to see a philosophy that isn't there, the outcome of what he's actually guilty of, which is preferring selecting players he knows and trusts, whose jib he likes the cut off, then sticking by them and playing them out of position if injuries occur rather than drafting in players who haven't been training with the squad for the duration of the camp.

Got to pick an England side (excluding Saints and Tigers) that could come up against a team like this -

Paul James, Brits, Castrogiovani
Wentzel, Hamilton
Lowe, Harinordiquy, Parisse,
Yachvilli
Evans
Nguenya
Hook, Daly
Rockocoko
Jared Payne

Benches of -
Kahn Fotualii, D.Jones, Lo Cicero, Rees, Samu Manoa, D.Mumm, Zanni

Not a problem PropDL
Excluding those in bold...i think you pretty much named the team above infact...

LH- Corbs & Marler
Hooker- Paice & Buchanan & Webber
TH-Wilson & PDJ & Thomas
SR- Attwood, Slater, Lawes, Launchbury
Bs's - Wood & Johnson
OS's - Kvesic & Clark
No.8's - Morgan & Vunipola

SH's - Dickson & Wigglesworth
FH's - Burns (Goode Back up)
IC's - Twelvetrees,
OC's - Joseph, Tomkins, Eastmond
Wings- Wade, May, Strettle, Yarde
FB's - Goode, Brown, Foden

1 Corbis / Marler
2 Webber
3 Wilson
4 Launchbury
5 Attwood
6 T.Johnson
7 Kvesic
8 Morgan

9 Wigglesworth
10 F.Burns
11 Wade
12 Twelvetrees
13 Tompkins
14 May
15 Brown

Thats a strong team, with the physicality and ball carrying i think we've missed, and potentially electric backs...
Only thing, Hari and Wentzel might have a field day in the lineout....but hopefully Johnson, Attwood and Launchbury can win us a bit of decent ball in that area...

EDit - is he allowed to bring repacements in for the finalists? If so he may even bring in a lineout guy either in the back row or the second row...just to cover...as im not sure Launchbury is totally prolific in the lineout yet and neither Attwood really with Wood or Croft not available.

Just an aside - and I know it was covered in another thread that was derailed, but I watched the quins/Tigers game last night. It was only the one game - and its not like Brown didnt play well - but he wasnt a patch on Tait.

If he keeps up this kind of progress he will hopefully make a case for more caps that cant be ignored.

Also thought Tom Youngs looked good apart from one line out throw. Croft - that try saving move was really good and his try something special. Care- seems to be involved in absolutely everything that Quins did.

Did I - oops, that must have been a slow day at work!

Has a scrum half been called up yet or is Clark covering.
He can be our mike Phillips

I think super-Clarke is covering 10 already?!

Bathman_in_London wrote:I think super-Clarke is covering 10 already?!

Pretty sure Marler is covering wing too, since Corbs is now back and Marler is too good to leave off the field.

mbernz wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:Mbernz, firstly what I was saying was partly tongue-in-cheek as I mention in my reply.

Secondly, I haven't heard Lancs make that reference to Johnson and Kvesic in the No.7 position. Lancs has mentioned Clark in that openside role before and that is supported by Clark himself "...been selected as a lock, rather than in his favoured position as an openside flanker."

And supported by "Neil Back, a great openside flanker, has stressed that Clark is the most natural and complete No7 in England".

Aside from which I also stated that Lancs has indeed come round more to the idea of a heavier-weight pack and yes Morgan has featured there prior to Wood. Let's not forget though he started with Phil Dowson there amongst Robshaw at 7 and Croft at 6.

He followed that this 6N once Morgan was injured with Wood at 8. Amongst another athletic BR and athletic lock pairing. His balance has been off and his desire for a quick and athletic pack, whilst modified with Morgan/Vunipola has been his aim. It's come unstuck and that is the overriding concern.

As I have said yes he seems to be augmenting that initial concept but let's not run away with the idea that restoring Morgan is going to solve the balance in the pack because it's not. I'm glad to see some heavy SRs in the touring squad and an excellent carrier in Kvesic to help spread the carrying load.

Nonetheless my appraisal of his initial overall philosophy represented by the BR I point to stands. He likes athletic players who can dominate I line-out.

He said Johnson was going as a 7 in one of the interviews after the recent squad announcement.

He did indeed start with Dowson at 8 for his first 2 matches in charge, but with Morgan on the bench to get his first caps from there, taking over the role for the third match. That's a pretty standard way to integrate a new player to international level.

And that big ball carrier at 8 is not a new choice for him. He championed Crane whilst in charge of the Leeds academy, seeing him promoted to the senior side at only 18. He also had him as captain of the Saxons pretty much all the time he was fit and not with the senior squad. His backrow for the Saxons that won the 2011 Churchill Cup -his last team before taking over the senior side- was Gaskell, Johnson (at 7) & Crane. Only Gaskell of those 3 could be described as the athletic line out type BR player you are suggesting he prefers. And his lock pairing for those games were Attwood & Botha, again, hardly quick and athletic.

I think you're joining dots to see a philosophy that isn't there, the outcome of what he's actually guilty of, which is preferring selecting players he knows and trusts, whose jib he likes the cut off, then sticking by them and playing them out of position if injuries occur rather than drafting in players who haven't been training with the squad for the duration of the camp.

Perhaps you're right about the last point mbernz. He may well not adhere to a philosophy of a purely athletic pack but the evidence, as you rightly assert, is that for whatever reason that is what he has ended up fielding.

Leaving aside the fact that Martin Johnson was responsible for picking the Saxons squad with which Lancaster worked, the point which you make regarding his preferring to stick with players he trusts and has knowledge of, over those which would bring better balance to the team actually worries me more than if he had an athletic pack philosophy.

Now i'm not a Lancaster detractor by any means but surely what is required on the international stage is not that you have a whole group of players which you believe in, regardless of whether they actually fit into a playing philosophy or not but that one lays down an over-arching model and then set about finding the best players and combinations which work within that?

Ultimately it's the failure to field a balanced pack which has hampered this team's development so far. That's before we even get into the concept of a back-line which blends. Whether it be due to a squad philosophy or desire to retain certain players on the pitch, Lancaster is guilty of making some poor selectional and positional calls in the games that matter.

Going forward i'm sure he's learning these lessons but let's at least accept some of those calls to date have been, and were at the time, plainly wrong.

I have a feeling he may have realised that whilst we came second in the 6n...some of the games werent great performances and Wales taught us a bit of a lesson.

Athletic is essential...but that must be mixed with some raw ferocious muscle and power, AND a backline that whilst having a strong defence...MUST be able to actually attack with skill at pace...and take risks sometimes.

Players like Attwood, Slater, provide alot more physical edge than maybe previous second row selections, Morgan and Vunipola fit will give serious ball carrying capabilities...Buchanan, Webber again add a physical edge...Corbs back gives us a massive presence in the front row.

In the backs...36 offers strong defence...BUT he also offers a great attacking platform over Barritt...as does Burns over Farrell.

Wingers like Wade and May are real deal wingers who can create something from nothing...

Spot on there GF. This could be a real pivotal point for the EPS going forward. I hope though, and on present evidence this would seem probable, that those who stand out in Argentina are recognised for the Autumn Internationals.

Our squad at the present certainly has the makings but needs these 'X-Factor' players to stand-out and integrate well. Only then will we have a squad capable of being No.1.

The only slight concern I have is the frequency with which Lancaster has referred to there only being 25 games left until the RWC. I know that's his aim but it would not be wise to ignore some stand-out players simply because they won't accrue the 'necessary' amount of caps in time.

To be fair to him the majority of the players 606s have wanted in the squad are now in it.

If anything it's a reason to fast-track players in now to make sure that they do get the experience in time.

I agree that, assuming some of the new guys play well in Argentina, the Autumn internationals selection could be a key turning point. The choice between a Burns/Twelvetrees midfield and a Farrell/Barritt for example.

I do have a feeling we'll be seeing both Brown and Foden starting in Argentina though. Our midfield is going to be incredibly young for a test series, and Lancaster might want to keep a couple of more experienced players out there. I'd be surprised if both May and Wade start in the same backline.

I have to agree Wendy...

I dont think there are many who arent touring (and arent on lions or being rested) that we would specifically complain about not being there.

Thomh

But players like Brown and Foden ARE the best english FB's imo so im happy to continue with them and work with them.

However i think most agree that whilst a Farrell / Barritt combination is a combative, strong defensive and controlling midfield...they are also not the most attack minded, and i feel its becoming a problem.

Burns / 36 might not be the holy saviours....but at least whilst they offer a solid defence they "could" offer a sizzling attacking potential...which needs to be looked at.

Its important to have a balance. Theres no point bringing in youngsters simply because they are young. They have to improve the team.

Many of the 1st team are nailed on...and thats good...what this tour should offer us i s a glimpse at what other players can offer in the positions that arent quite so nailed down and are indeed hurting the performance of the current team....

geordiefalcon Burns/36 - 10 and 12 in my opinion are not good enough defensively yet. Burns is certainly not solid, he is fragile in defence. 36 is simply not as accomplished a defender as Barritt.

beshocked wrote:geordiefalcon Burns/36 - 10 and 12 in my opinion are not good enough defensively yet. Burns is certainly not solid, he is fragile in defence. 36 is simply not as accomplished a defender as Barritt.

Who is? - and as we all know Farrell is no mug in defense either. Few players offer everything you want but these guys should offer more in offense to make up for it. We all want a situation where the opposition will have to do more to defend than just double/triple team Manu...

If you loose 'defense' here then you have to look to make it up elsewhere

Burns has an awful defence, be a real test for him in Arg. I'm also really unsure of his game management, some of the passes he throws are crazy.