England Captain - Is A Change On The Cards?

With the recent EPS announcement, there was no mention of the captain's armband & who would take it. Robshaw held the captaincy through the Autumn & 6 Nations, his top job being the win against the ABs and his more questionable moments being the arguing & poor decision making against SA, and the team folding against Wales in the 6N.

Tom Wood was brought in as Captain for the tour to Argentina and led well, like Robshaw, from the front. I remember a while back in 2012 reading that Stuart Lancaster's Captain of choice was Wood, but he went for Robshaw due to Wood's foot injury which kept him out of the 2012 6N.

Is it possible that a change is likely? I am a fan of both players and would be happy with either as the England skipper; I just don't know the reasoning behind the waiting game.

I am sure I read on another post that Wood was going to be captain for the AIs maybe I am wrong.

I think it's all rumour at the moment.

Wood was meant to be captain all along. And Chris is currently going through an unpopular phase with fans as he's not been playing.

I don't think we'll know anything until a few months in to the season and we can compare. SL would be silly to talk about captaincy now as there is plenty of time for form, bans and injury to make changes.

As long as the starting backrow is the best it can be (IMO that's Wood, Robshaw, Morgan) then I don't mind who is captain, I think those two flankers will both work well together either way.

Aren't the Quins being pressured to play Robshaw at 6 ?

I'm asuming that big Polish(?) lad is being groomed for the EPS as he's an actual 7 ?

Yeah its a wait and see.

Wood i believe was always no.1 choice for captaincy in the first place.

But Robshaw has done very well, and his performances have been top class for club and country.

Ill say again...a back row of :
6 Wood
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan
is a pretty damn good one...with two captains in it.

munkian wrote:Aren't the Quins being pressured to play Robshaw at 6 ?

Only by their own squad requirements. Maurie Fa'asavalu is in his last season at 6 and Luke Wallace is coming through at 7 so it looks likely that Robshaw will shift.

Its the John Smit issue for England.

Leadership of Robshaw is very strong as is performances. Big gulf if he leaves.

Positionally perhaps not now but soon there is a strong case to suggest he won't be the best in his position come the RWC15.

with hindsight of history its often better to look to someone who is and will be first choice and develop his leadership skills.

Its a Warbs/Tipuric situation I guess. Though Warbs IS a 7 and CAN be a very good one.

Is Robshaw that good of a leader ? Made a few Howlers in England's last AI matches and the inexperienced England squad didnt seem to miss him against the Pumas

Problem is that sometimes great players are not great leaders.  In my experience, leadership is 50% heart.  In other words, it comes from someone's internal wiring.  People can take leadership courses, can learn what to do, but under pressure still can't lead that proverbial horse to water.  

Martin Johnson became captain of Lions and England at what young ages?  O'Driscoll clearly has the leadership and was also a great plyaer.  But they make the point that talented players with the leadership edge are rare indeed.

Kvesic is not Polish, he was actually born in Germany

Ultimately the question is How much weight do you put on intangible things like leadership?

Personally, I'd much rather they just put out the best possible XV, and then select a captain from those players, as I'm not convinced that those intangibles bring enough to the table to justify not selecting the best available player.

Robshaw is still our best 7 so it's not the Warbs situation. And as for intangibles like leadership, don't the ABs have their whole Mana thing?

Alot of my English mates are calling for Kvesic at 7 which is why I asked

Wood Robshaw Morgsn will start with either Wood or Robshaw captaining and Kvesic will I initially get time off the bench. That back row hasn't been outplayed yet

How much gametime has it actually had though and against who ?

3 matches vs South Africa (who won but the backrow bested theirs), New Zealand and Scotland

ChequeredJersey

I don't think there is an argument into Robshaw not being England's best 7 at the moment... he's one of the best players on the planet IMO at the moment. Its arguable that he won't be come RWC15 though and Lancaster has to wary of this.

However Lancaster is building a side for the RWC. Nick Easter is a very good player, probably would be in the squad if it was a one off match.... but he won't be in 2 years time and thats how Lancaster should be doing things.

Leadership takes time to build, even for those where it comes naturally.

The RWC is only 2 years away, Robshaw should be peaking as a flanker then

There are shades of the Will Carling debate here.

There were many doubts about Carling all through his captaincy. Many thought Guscott would be better alongside his club partners, Halliday or de Glanville. When de Glanville did get a start it ended up being at the expense of a late career Guscott.

Carling got three seasons to win a Five Nations. 1988-89 showed promise, and we ended up second behind France. 1989-90 saw us playing for a Grand Slam but getting ambushed by Scotland, who claimed it instead. 1990-91 finally clinched the deal.

After that, Carling was virtually undroppable. He was a good enough player, but had also come to represent the England of that era.

We might be in a similar position now. If Robshaw manages to lead England to success, it will be harder for Lancaster to drop him. That's a big "if", of course.

Matt Kvesic, born in Germany of Croation ancestry (his parents are english, father in the army). Went to Blundells school in Tiverton (yo, give me six).

So we can expect a load of crap about us poaching from Germany/ FRY now i suppose.

Rugby Fan

I think many people slam Carling but I can't see how De Glanville was better. Carling was a top class player in his day, over shadowed by a fantastic player in Guscott.

Carling is still the joint top scorer for England in RWC history in the KO stages with Rory Underwood... in the big games, Carling performed.

There were better players in his position out there but not those who were English IMO.

Effervescing Elephant wrote:Matt Kvesic, born in Germany of Croation ancestry (his parents are english, father in the army). Went to Blundells school in Tiverton (yo, give me six).

So we can expect a load of crap about us poaching from Germany/ FRY now i suppose.

I liked that one

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yeah its a wait and see.

Wood i believe was always no.1 choice for captaincy in the first place.

But Robshaw has done very well, and his performances have been top class for club and country.

Ill say again...a back row of :
6 Wood
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan
is a pretty damn good one...with two captains in it.

Where does that lead Croft, who Gatland rates more highly than the above three, but most English posters here don't?

With only one back row replacement, would that be Billy Vunipola?

Have Wood and Croft ever played together? We know from 6N 2012 that Robshaw and Croft play very well together (I will remember the France match for a long, long time), and all the evidence seems to be that at international level you only get the best from Croft if you pair him with an all-rounder at 7 as opposed to a traditional 7.

Lancaster is building a squad with a variety of different types of player in it - which is good - the challenge or him will be to find a balance between picking on form and the type of game he wants to play and providing some stability.

I suppose in the long run it's very possible that one of Wood or Robshaw will end up being used in the way that Woodward used Mike Catt - as first choice for specific types of games but not for others. I think it's very unlikely, barring injury, that one or the other won't feature in the starting XV, though.

fa0019 wrote:...I think many people slam Carling but I can't see how De Glanville was better...

I'm not slamming Carling. The comparison with Robshaw stands precisely because Carling was a good player.

Halliday and de Glanville were thought to be a better partners for Guscott, and and fair number of England fans seemed convinced we weren't seeing the best of JG.

Carling led England during one of it's most successful periods but there were some lows too. The 1990 Grand Slam, the 1991 World Cup Final, the 1993 Five Nations and the 1995 semi final against New Zealand among them. I have a lot of time for Carling but he didn't have an unbroken run of form either as a player or captain.

In particular, that 1993 season saw a crisis of confidence, with Andrew getting dropped and Carling losing the chance to challenge for the Lions captaincy after a bad loss against Ireland.

Carling himself called it "extraordinary" when Rowell later chose to drop Guscott when he brought in de Glanville, not least because it meant playing Carling out of position.

I would like to see Robshaw keep the captaincy to be honest..

Alex_Germany wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yeah its a wait and see.

Wood i believe was always no.1 choice for captaincy in the first place.

But Robshaw has done very well, and his performances have been top class for club and country.

Ill say again...a back row of :
6 Wood
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan
is a pretty damn good one...with two captains in it.

Where does that lead Croft, who Gatland rates more highly than the above three, but most English posters here don't?

With only one back row replacement, would that be Billy Vunipola?

I think the backrow replacement would be KVesic to be honest, as he's played all across the backrow for Worcester. Think he played at 8 for a majority of last season?

Vunipola is a little one dimensional for a bench spot I think, though if it's a particularly physcial game agains the likes of Tonga or Samoa, he could be the sub option.

I reckon it will be Croft and Kvesic fighting it out for a while as the replacement option.

Geordie falcon just wrote this (on Will Lancaster learn ... thread)

Re: Will Lancaster learn anything from the Lions win?

New post by GeordieFalcon Today at 12:24 pm
I think a critical thing that we're all maybe missing is the lineout.

Its still a big part of the game...and im not confident that our second rows are fully world class in this department yet..(and i include Parling in that)

Croft however IS world class in this area...so this needs to be considered. Wood is a very good lineout technician but not at Crofts level.

Croft's line out ability might mean with Atwood and Launchbury he needs to start. That leaves Wood on the bench - he can play 8, though not as well as Vunipola.

Again - not ideal.

Yeh, although Attwood's line out work was brilliant in Argentina. I think between him, Launch, Wood, and Robshaw, we have enough line out operators.

Are you thinking to have Croft on the bench as second row cover?
As you say, he is very good in the lineout.

I don't think Croft is 2nd row cover. I'm trying to figure out the backrow dilemma. Basically,
1. Which two of Croft, Robshaw and Wood start at 6 and 7? Croft's line out ability might swing it in his favour.
2. Who is planned to replace Morgan after 60 minutes, but might also have to cover for injury at 6 or 7?

Kvesic, done, he has played more AP level matches at 8 than at 7. Wood is also an excellent lineout jumper, not quite Croft but the Lions managed alright without him. Parling will start anyway

Yes Parling will start. Probably with Launchbury, Wood and Robshaw

That gives us four options...is that a strong enough lineout...?

I think 4 options is more than enough to be honest GF mate.

Very often do you actually see a 4th lineout option used really. I think most teams tend to stick to two primary jumpers, a 3rd option, and rarely go to a 4th.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yes Parling will start. Probably with Launchbury, Wood and Robshaw

That gives us four options...is that a strong enough lineout...?

I don't know that that is set in stone. It's highly likely but Lancs specifically referred to Attwood when announcing the EPS and I think he realises the need for balance and impact. I don't think the line-out is weak with a BR of 6. T Wood 7. C Robsahw 8. B Morgan. Ronshaw actually takes a lot of line-outs and does well at it.

If that were a concern the back 5 and bench would have to look like this in my view:

4. J Launchbury (V Athletic good jumper at middle and front)
5. D Attwood (Good front jumper and much needed ballast)
6. T Croft (The best line-out flanker in world rugby)
7. T Wood (Great jumper and has to start somewhere, for me)
8. B Morgan (The cannonball)

19. C Lawes (Good jumper, impact and Wood/Croft can run the line)
20. B Vunipola (I think Lancs realises we need impact from the bench and a replacement for Morgan if injured again)

CHJ,

Im just not sure he'd drop Parling. He's a Lancaster type of player. A team player that just gets on and does it.
personally I think he is replaceable...but Gatland rated him highly enough for the Lions, and i guess his opinion is more knowledgeable than mine.

It then comes down to Launchbury or Attwood. Based on whos playing best at the time.

GeordieFalcon wrote:CHJ,

Im just not sure he'd drop Parling. He's a Lancaster type of player. A team player that just gets on and does it.
personally I think he is replaceable...but Gatland rated him highly enough for the Lions, and i guess his opinion is more knowledgeable than mine.

It then comes down to Launchbury or Attwood. Based on whos playing best at the time.  

Prior to Attwood's line-out work I would've agreed that one could pair him with Parling but now i'm not so sure. Attwood has moved beyond the traditional 4 into a heavy duty 5. Can they both play at the same time? Do Attwood's calls vary from Parling's?

For me it's Attwood or Parling. I agree Lancs is highly unlikely to drop the Lion Parling but if he doesn't it negates some of the lessons he's learnt out in Argentina. Namely that England need more ballast to their pack. Just having Morgan back doesn't solve the dynamic. Likewise without Webber and Hartley on poor form there's a lighter option at hooker. The tight carrying work of Wilson will be out. We'll be back to:

1. A Corbisiero
2. T Youngs
3. D Cole
4. J Launchbury
5. G Parling
6. T Croft
7. C Robshaw
8. B Morgan

6 Could just as easily be Wood with Croft benched. That isn't very different from the slightly underpowered pack we played for the 6N. Contrast that with the Argentina pack of:

1. J Marler
2. R Webber
3. D Wilson
4. J Launchbury
5. D Attwood
6. T Wood
7. M Kvesic
8. B Morgan

And that looks to be a better scrummaging pack and far better in the tight carrying and rucking. I'm not saying that's the pack to go with but if lessons have been learnt then changes to the 6N pack is essential for better balance. I hear too many people saying it's fine because we've got Morgan back but we need four to five good carriers in the pack.

Not sure that pack against Argentina is better at scrummaging or rucking than the 6N pack. Corbisiero is ahead of both Marler and Vunipola in the scrum right now, and Cole is ahead of Wilson. Cole is also an excellent operator in the rucks.

That said, I wouldn't argue against considering Attwood. But would he swap in for Launchbury or for Parling? Launchbury is more a 4 than a 5, but he's an unusual one in being athletic rather than an out-and-out enforcer. At U20 level his partner was Charlie Matthews, who's also unusual in being a big unit but also a capable lineout operator. He still has a bit to learn but will probably get a lot more game time for Quins this season and could be a long term answer. But I could see quite a lot of merit in an Attwood/Parling combo.

Well here we go...Launchbury has excelled at 6 for wasps also..

4 Attwood
5 Parling
6 Launchbury

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well here we go...Launchbury has excelled at 6 for wasps also..

4 Attwood
5 Parling
6 Launchbury
Light blue touch paper. Retreat to a safe distance

There. Fixed that for you.

 absolutely Poorfour

you only get the best from Croft if you pair him with an all-rounder at 7 as opposed to a traditional 7."

Poorfour his form at the end of last season (when he had actually regained fitness) was brilliant and he was partnered with a traditional 7 in Salvi. He was also excellent when paired with Robshaw the previous six nations. Croft will play with any type of 7. It's the 8 that's more crucial. There's no coincidence that his form took off last season with once work horse Crane was back and in form with Croft struggling for England with Wood at 8.

Chjw not sure how you decided Wilson was a better option in a scrummaging pack than Cole? Wilson has never shone on the international stage (despite good form at the end of last season) and Cole is a Lion and despatched some pretty big name looseheads last season, notably his disassembly of Tonga'huia (sp) in the final. I note that Parling and Tom Youngs his fellow Lions are also dismissed as quickly. Who'd have thought winning the Premiership, reaching the knock out stages of the HEC and touring with the Lions would be overshadowed by three Bath boys inconsistent season's culminating in victories over the Argentine A side. This grass is always greener syndrome is very odd.

Geordiefalcon I know it sounds crazy but why not pick an actual blindside flanker at 6?

1.Corbisiero
2.Youngs
3.Cole
4.Parling
5.Launchbury
6.Wood
7.Robshaw
8.Morgan
9.Youngs
10.Farrell
11.Yarde
12.Barritt/36
13.Tuilagi
14.Wade
15.Foden/Brown

16.Vunipola
17.Wilson
18.Hartley/Webber
19.Attwood
20.Vunipola
21.Care
22.Burns
23.Eastmond

Sam, Youngs and Parling will both start the Ai's without question.

Croft as always is the player that simply divides opinions. I certainly see his strengths, but also see his weaknesses. It simply depends on the set up of the rest of the pack to see who will fill those back row spots.

Geordiefalcon I know it sounds crazy but why not pick an actual blindside flanker at 6?

Oh Beshocked man, i was just messing. Its Wood or Croft for the England 6 spot...noone else. And as you have listed above 6 Wood 7 Robshaw 8 Morgan would do me very nicely...yet i could also see the benefits of 6 Croft 7 Robshaw 8 Morgan

Let Wood and Robshaw share leadership roles.
One is captain, tuther is pack leader.

I say the more confident leaders that are included then the better - Surely several guys leading from the front is better than 1 guy. If there is as coined by SL a leadership group within the team then they are the ones that step up when things don't go to plan.

Geordiefalcon I just don't know why Croft's lineout skills are being hugely overstated. A backrow's key job is not to be good in the lineout. That's what the locks should be doing surely?

Croft is not your traditional blindside. It is more difficult to find a healthy balance with him in the backrow at international level as shown by the Wales game and the Lions tour for example.

I don't think the pack should revolve around Croft personally even though he played well in last year's 6 nations.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon I just don't know why Croft's lineout skills are being hugely overstated. A backrow's  key job is not to be good in the lineout. That's what the locks should be doing surely?

Croft is not your traditional blindside. It is more difficult to find a healthy balance with him in the backrow at international level as shown by the Wales game and the Lions tour for example.

I don't think the pack should revolve around Croft personally even though he played well in last year's 6 nations.

+1

Wood and Robshaw are good enough in the lineout and work better as a combo

I think the pack is (or should be) the most settled part of the squad,  as far as I'm concerned Beshocked described it down to a man.  It is finally starting to accumulate caps and experience.

Personally I think Robshaw and Wood are a touch to samey and England need one or the other and a different option on the other flank. Two tackle happy 6.5s who will happily mix it in the tight and link but both have the same weaknesses in size and pace don't really offer the range of skills England need. Either a Kvesic or a Croft to inject something different and a proper 8 (no more Wood at 8 nonsense) is required if we are to go toe to toe with the best regularly.

Having said that we are strong in the backrow, the backs worry me more.