Tom Wood set to be England captain this autumn

What it says on the tin.
Steffon Armitage coming in? Robshaw on bench due to his jack of all trades master of nothing style of play?
England fans happy with Wood as captain?
Or very disappointed that "should have been Lions captain" Robshaw is no longer in charge?

My thoughts,Wood is a poor choice he is not as good as the SKY commentary make him out to be never mind the temperament of a International captain,
i think back to the Scarlets humiliating Saints in the HC in their back yard and Wood was a stand out sulker when the pressure was on.

Robshaw was never a good captain far to meek to deal with the ref and pretty average player who won't be missed by the England team.

Lancaster, Well Lancaster is starting to prove his limited ability as a coach who does not know his own mind, proving he is easily swayed by outside opinion.

Summary--- Bad decisions all round by a weak coach, England looking rudderless as the 2015 world cup approaches, cue mass panic by December next year from the media and fans,knee jerk reactions from the top, possible humiliating group stage exit in world cup.

Anyways what you think?

Is this speculation? Armitage won't get a look in as he plays in France.

Wood was widely tipped to be captain before he got injured. With Croft out for the season, Wood could be at 6. But I think Lancaster might go with Kvesic at 7 and Robshaw at 6.

Tabloid papers are saying it

Well not just saying it, they know he will be captain.

What tabloids? They normally couldn't give a rat's rear end about rugby (unless England win). Especially with the CL footie going on.

I think you're a pretty poor wum. Far too obvious and you don't make up for it by being even remotely funny. Apart from that this is a great post.

Well do you know what i don't want to say because it's a bit embarrassing, i promise i just read it to laugh at the readers comments.
It sounds like The Maily Dail

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think you're a pretty poor wum. Far too obvious and you don't make up for it by being even remotely funny. Apart from that this is a great post.

I seek the approval of people off the internet so thank you for your kind words  
Also may i add if you don't like the hard facts i throw out their i suggest you stick your head back in the trench 

Not saying it's not true, the captain bit anyway, just that you're an idiot.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not saying it's not true, the captain bit anyway, just that you're an idiot.

Welcome to the mutual club  
Care to talk about what i have to say rather than insulting me?

No-one is talking about Armitage coming back.

I don't think England supporters will be thinking "thank goodness" if Robshaw is dropped. We'll probably be a bit wary of losing his work-rate but, at the same time, keen to see what a different seven might bring to the party. If it turns out we lose more than we gain, then he'll be back in.

On the captaincy front, Robshaw was getting better but, if he's not guaranteed a place, then we probably need to give Wood more experience in the role now. It's still a young team, and there aren't many who have captained at club level. Hartley blotted his copybook on that front, while Flood also isn't guaranteed his place.

Will Carling was 22 when he first captained England, and I don't think he was captain at Harlequins, so it's not out of the question for someone else to be named. Then again, he had been in the army, which the RFU liked.

In fact, if Robshaw doesn't even make the bench, it will raise the question of who will be vice captain. Hartley often filled that role but he isn't necessarily on the bench, and is no shoo-in for leadership now either.

I think we can safely say Manu is not in the frame.

Hound of Harrow wrote:What tabloids? They normally couldn't give a rat's rear end about rugby (unless England win). Especially with the CL footie going on.

The Daily Mail, aka literally the worst piece of journalism the UK has ever seen. Let's see what happens. Lancaster won't bring in players from France though, and if he goes as far as to drop Robshaw he is absolutely nuts. Wood being captain is neither here nor there frankly

Rugby Fan wrote:No-one is talking about Armitage coming back.

I don't think England supporters will be thinking "thank goodness" if Robshaw is dropped. We'll probably be a bit wary of losing his work-rate but, at the same time, keen to see what a different seven might bring to the party. If it turns out we lose more than we gain, then he'll be back in.

On the captaincy front, Robshaw was getting better but, if he's not guaranteed a place, then we probably need to give Wood more experience in the role now. It's still a young team, and there aren't many who have captained at club level. Hartley blotted his copybook on that front, while Flood also isn't guaranteed his place.

Will Carling was 22 when he first captained England, and I don't think he was captain at Harlequins, so it's not out of the question for someone else to be named. Then again, he had been in the army, which the RFU liked.

In fact, if Robshaw doesn't even make the bench, it will raise the question of who will be vice captain. Hartley often filled that role but he isn't necessarily on the bench, and is no shoo-in for leadership now either.

I think we can safely say Manu is not in the frame.

Has Wood captained Saints?

ChequeredJersey wrote:Has Wood captained Saints?

I thought he had worn the armband on occasion but I might just be making that up.

I'm actually having a hard time thinking about who else could be captain. Scrum halves can be a good choice but all our guys can be a bit too chippy. England seem to like naming locks (Beaumont, Johnson, Borthwick) so maybe one of them will be in the frame (except Lawes).

I've always thought that captaincy would either make or break Care but he's not a sure starter. I think it has to be Wood or Robshaw or maybe Parling though

Ah not parling...that means he has to start and im just not sure about that...

Could be the best thing for England in the long run... they have to be thinking about 2015. They have the potential to win the trophy, but the lack the ball retention and stealing skills of other nations puts them at a disadvantage. Gatland saw it.. The days of Jack Rowell rugby died on a sunny day in Newlands 18 years ago, England didn't win the RWC then and they won't win one in 2 years time with the same methodology.

Robshaw is an admiral player, great tackler and never gives less then 100%.... but Wood & Croft are more suitable blindsides and England need a more balanced backrow. If Wood is out or even if England are facing a team such as SA where you need big tacklers then Robshaw may come back into the equation.... but otherwise I think it would be the right decision.

I see viewtothedim is back to his old tricks.

Well, who's a cert if they're fit? Corbs, for one. I reckon he might be a decent shout as captain, despite now knowing anything about his captaincy experience. Seems a level headed sort of chap, and certainly a leader on the pitch. Parling's a decent shout too, although I fear he may lose his spot to someone more physical (in the Matin Johnson / Danny Grewcock mould). I don't think anyone else is really guaranteed their place, other than maybe Ben Morgan and Manu, and I don't think we'd be looking at them for captaincy.

Back row options? What about Billy V at 6, Ben Morgan at 8 and Kvesic at 7? Plenty of oomph, plus a real 7 (as it were). Harsh on Robshaw and Wood, but a possibility.

Billy and Morgan are too similar Rins...let them fight it out for the 8 spot...

Croft is out for the season...and we all know (sadly) what an anterior cruciate injury can do - ive had it myself. Croft may come back as good as new...but history suggests it may not be the case..

Parling...is his position safe?

Corbs and Cole are probably the only two certs in the team...and even Corbs is so bloomin injury prone you couldnt risk giving it to him.

So for the minute its Robshaw v Wood. Wood will start at 6 in the AI's...and Robshaw will start at 7 so let Robshaw keep it. Until i see top class performances (as Robshaw has produced year on year) from the young pretenders to Robshaws shirt he keeps that 7 shirt.

Rinsure wrote:Well, who's a cert if they're fit? Corbs, for one. I reckon he might be a decent shout as captain, despite now knowing anything about his captaincy experience. Seems a level headed sort of chap, and certainly a leader on the pitch. Parling's a decent shout too, although I fear he may lose his spot to someone more physical (in the Matin Johnson / Danny Grewcock mould). I don't think anyone else is really guaranteed their place, other than maybe Ben Morgan and Manu, and I don't think we'd be looking at them for captaincy.

Back row options? What about Billy V at 6, Ben Morgan at 8 and Kvesic at 7? Plenty of oomph, plus a real 7 (as it were). Harsh on Robshaw and Wood, but a possibility.

If we play South Africa I would genuinely like us to consider 6. B Vunipola/Haskell 7. Robshaw 8. Morgan/Vunipola. Against Alberts, Louw, Etzebeth, Bismarck et al we just need to front up physically. I'd also want Launchbury as an athletic workhorse and another VERY big lock. Not sure who we have, maybe Attwood or Garvey?

Wood or Croft v the Boks? Sorry, I massively rate both and I agree ordinarily on the balance argument, but with either and a front five that isn't massive, they'll batter us.

Fearns at 6 Hood otherwise spot on.

Regarding Robshaw I don't see what he's done to lose his place other then have the misfortune to not be flavour of the month at the moment. Certainly his first two matches back were good enough.

Oh and everyone going on about 7's and jackals and fetchers etc. Look at Oz, the pack as a whole is far more important then how quick your 7 is.

Classic view....

You can't keep the ol dog down.

Yappy...Robshaw is still No.1 by quite a way...and as i said above...Fraser, Kvesic, Wallace or Saull etc need to put in some continuously high performances to oust him...the only possibly change could be Wood coming in at 7 for a larger 6 like the inform Garvey.

Garvey and Attwood at 4 and 6 look a massive combo...and one that seems to have gelled together very quickly...and also Attwood's lineout work looks excellent. Add in the excellent Launchbury and it looks useful.

Dont underestimate Woods physicality. He's powerful and tough despite his more lean physique...

The below set up would give options of huge physicality, lineout, carrying and no little athleticism...everything you want.

1 Corbs
2 Youngs / Webber
3 Cole
4 Attwood
5 Launchbury
6 Garvey / Wood
7 Robshaw / Wood
8 Morgan / Vunipola

If Kvesic can put in something above a 6/10 performance at some point for Gloucester, or Fraser gets fit, or Wallace can step up again or someone actually playing"7" can show they are close to Robshaw's level on form (none of them have been this season, the best contender so far was Thompson and Jones both playing 6.5, apparently an unacceptable prospect) then we can start to think about dropping Robshaw. Frankly Kvesic has been a disappointment in his first 2 matches though it is hard to play when you are missing a forward

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yappy...Robshaw is still No.1 by quite a way...and as i said above...Fraser, Kvesic, Wallace or Saull etc need to put in some continuously high performances to oust him...the only possibly change could be Wood coming in at 7 for a larger 6 like the inform Garvey.  

Garvey and Attwood at 4 and 6 look a massive combo...and one that seems to have gelled together very quickly...and also Attwood's lineout work looks excellent. Add in the excellent Launchbury and it looks useful.

Dont underestimate Woods physicality. He's powerful and tough despite his more lean physique...

The below set up would give options of huge physicality, lineout, carrying and no little athleticism...everything you want.

1 Corbs
2 Youngs / Webber
3 Cole
4 Attwood
5 Launchbury
6 Garvey / Wood
7 Robshaw / Wood
8 Morgan / Vunipola

Ok, I know i'm rather obsessing with one team, but compare with the Boks' pack against NZ.
1. Tendai Mtawarira
2 Bismarck du Plessis
3 Jannie du Plessis
4 Eben Etzebeth
5 Flip van der Merwe
6 Francois Louw
7 Willem Alberts
8 Duane Vermeulen

I'd say in terms of ball-carriers and aggressive defenders, we probably beat them at 1 and 8. In terms of all-round ability etc I think we match up pretty well, but if they just punch holes up the middle I'm not sure how much it'll matter. If Connie Oustheizen plays for Jannie then their ball-carrying goes up even further.

Its a difficult one Hood...do we just pump it full of monsters in the pack...or do we mix it up with some athleticism aswell.
I prefer the later but those athletic guys still need to be able to mix it up physically.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Its a difficult one Hood...do we just pump it full of monsters in the pack...or do we mix it up with some athleticism aswell.
I prefer the later but those athletic guys still need to be able to mix it up physically.

I know, i agree, I'm just not convinced we have the players who offer both. Players like Haskell are probably the closest but he's probably a)not as all-round as decent a player as someone like Wood or b)flavour of the month. Maybe it's horses for courses, but I just feel we need to see what our biggest, nastiest pack can do as a unit before we face a team like the Boks, or even Wales.

If Haskell is showing form, has had a great pre season and looks in top physical and mental shape he is a huge plus for us i think. I would definately consider him for the 6 spot.

What is our biggest nastiest pack?

1 Corbs
2 Webber / Youngs
3 Cole
4 Attwood
5 Slater
6 Garvey
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan

Does that have enough lineout capability?

GeordieFalcon wrote:If Haskell is showing form, has had a great pre season and looks in top physical and mental shape he is a huge plus for us i think. I would definately consider him for the 6 spot.

What is our biggest nastiest pack?

1 Corbs
2 Webber / Youngs
3 Cole
4 Attwood
5 Slater
6 Garvey
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan

Does that have enough lineout capability?

His full game isn't as good but D Wilson at tighthead is a better carrier than Cole. That probably is about it, maybe Vunipola at 8. I think it's a real shame what's happened with Garvey. Looked like a SR who would carry all day and make hard yards every time, but somewhere he morphed into another 'work-rate' player at 6. Great, he gets through a lot of work for a big guy, but he no longer carries it seems, or at least to little effect. He should have been focused on as a heavy-duty carrier, IMO.

Hood83 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yappy...Robshaw is still No.1 by quite a way...and as i said above...Fraser, Kvesic, Wallace or Saull etc need to put in some continuously high performances to oust him...the only possibly change could be Wood coming in at 7 for a larger 6 like the inform Garvey.  

Garvey and Attwood at 4 and 6 look a massive combo...and one that seems to have gelled together very quickly...and also Attwood's lineout work looks excellent. Add in the excellent Launchbury and it looks useful.

Dont underestimate Woods physicality. He's powerful and tough despite his more lean physique...

The below set up would give options of huge physicality, lineout, carrying and no little athleticism...everything you want.

1 Corbs
2 Youngs / Webber
3 Cole
4 Attwood
5 Launchbury
6 Garvey / Wood
7 Robshaw / Wood
8 Morgan / Vunipola

Ok, I know i'm rather obsessing with one team, but compare with the Boks' pack against NZ.
1.     Tendai Mtawarira
2 Bismarck du Plessis
3 Jannie du Plessis
4 Eben Etzebeth
5 Flip van der Merwe
6 Francois Louw
7 Willem Alberts
8 Duane Vermeulen

I'd say in terms of ball-carriers and aggressive defenders, we probably beat them at 1 and 8. In terms of all-round ability etc I think we match up pretty well, but if they just punch holes up the middle I'm not sure how much it'll matter. If Connie Oustheizen plays for Jannie then their ball-carrying goes up even further.

Hood I agree with the sentiments of what you're saying here completely. The only thing I would say to counter that is to have a look at the actual NZ team which took the AB's to the cleaners.

1. T Woodcock
2. D Coles
3. O Franks
4. B Retallick - had a storming game and no doubt a good pre-game pep talk.
5. G Whitelock
6. L Messam - carrying was ok but tackling excellent.
7. S Cane - but his body on the line time and again.
8. K Read - one of the best performances i've ever seen from him, sheer world class technique.

That is not a massive heavy duty pack put out in response to the SA power. It has a nice balance to it and whilst we're talking about some truly world class operators in there; K Read being the most notable it's not a reactive one.

We got dominated at times in SA last year and that was embarrassing for an English pack. Having said that I don't think we need to start thinking purely along the lines of going for the super-pack in response to SA. We would still lose on that basis alone. What SA have is very big guys but massive amounts of aggression to go with it. It's a cultural thing as well as a question of technique.

There should be a balanced English pack in my view, working to our strengths. We need some close in carriers and some excellent ruck clearance to be able to generate that quick ball and beat a team like SA through our backline in much the way NZ did. This would be mine for a hypothetical SA game:

1. A Corbisiero
2. T Youngs
3. D Wilson
4. J Launchbury
5. D Attwood
6. T Wood
7. M Kvesic
8. B Morgan

16. R Webber 17. M Vunipola 18. D Cole 19. C Lawes 20. B Vunipola

That gives 5 good carrying options in the pack with 3 other players who represent massively high work rates. Garvey will have a shot at some point he's been going well but just now doesn't make the grade. Wilson at the moment edges Cole for me who seems to have dropped his intensity levels a bit at the moment.

That pack for me, has everything needed to be part of a World Class team.

Incidentally Slater is the only player I missed out who could make the grade. Went really well for Tigers against Bath and despite not having much game time since injury.

Chjw131 wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yappy...Robshaw is still No.1 by quite a way...and as i said above...Fraser, Kvesic, Wallace or Saull etc need to put in some continuously high performances to oust him...the only possibly change could be Wood coming in at 7 for a larger 6 like the inform Garvey.  

Garvey and Attwood at 4 and 6 look a massive combo...and one that seems to have gelled together very quickly...and also Attwood's lineout work looks excellent. Add in the excellent Launchbury and it looks useful.

Dont underestimate Woods physicality. He's powerful and tough despite his more lean physique...

The below set up would give options of huge physicality, lineout, carrying and no little athleticism...everything you want.

1 Corbs
2 Youngs / Webber
3 Cole
4 Attwood
5 Launchbury
6 Garvey / Wood
7 Robshaw / Wood
8 Morgan / Vunipola

Ok, I know i'm rather obsessing with one team, but compare with the Boks' pack against NZ.
1.     Tendai Mtawarira
2 Bismarck du Plessis
3 Jannie du Plessis
4 Eben Etzebeth
5 Flip van der Merwe
6 Francois Louw
7 Willem Alberts
8 Duane Vermeulen

I'd say in terms of ball-carriers and aggressive defenders, we probably beat them at 1 and 8. In terms of all-round ability etc I think we match up pretty well, but if they just punch holes up the middle I'm not sure how much it'll matter. If Connie Oustheizen plays for Jannie then their ball-carrying goes up even further.

Hood I agree with the sentiments of what you're saying here completely. The only thing I would say to counter that is to have a look at the actual NZ team which took the AB's to the cleaners.

1. T Woodcock
2. D Coles
3. O Franks
4. B Retallick - had a storming game and no doubt a good pre-game pep talk.
5. G Whitelock
6. L Messam - carrying was ok but tackling excellent.
7. S Cane - but his body on the line time and again.
8. K Read - one of the best performances i've ever seen from him, sheer world class technique.

That is not a massive heavy duty pack put out in response to the SA power. It has a nice balance to it and whilst we're talking about some truly world class operators in there; K Read being the most notable it's not a reactive one.

We got dominated at times in SA last year and that was embarrassing for an English pack. Having said that I don't think we need to start thinking purely along the lines of going for the super-pack in response to SA. We would still lose on that basis alone. What SA have is very big guys but massive amounts of aggression to go with it. It's a cultural thing as well as a question of technique.

There should be a balanced English pack in my view, working to our strengths. We need some close in carriers and some excellent ruck clearance to be able to generate that quick ball and beat a team like SA through our backline in much the way NZ did. This would be mine for a hypothetical SA game:

1. A Corbisiero
2. T Youngs
3. D Wilson
4. J Launchbury
5. D Attwood
6. T Wood
7. M Kvesic
8. B Morgan

16. R Webber 17. M Vunipola 18. D Cole 19. C Lawes 20. B Vunipola

That gives 5 good carrying options in the pack with 3 other players who represent massively high work rates. Garvey will have a shot at some point he's been going well but just now doesn't make the grade. Wilson at the moment edges Cole for me who seems to have dropped his intensity levels a bit at the moment.

That pack for me, has everything needed to be part of a World Class team.

I think this makes a lot of sense. I think we can become too concerned with our opposition and nullifying them, but I also feel there will be problems with SA if we don't. We don't have ABs backs, or anything close to being as clinical. And the SA aggression has only ever been countered by us having bigger guys i.e. they can huff and puff all they like, but they're smaller than us. I'm not sure we can manufacture the ABs intensity and anyway, that pack only blew the Boks away when they lost Bismarck. Until then, they looked second best to me.

I think Kvesic and Wood together v Alberts and Louw is a recipe for disaster. If only T Youngs was Bismarck's size, his rucking is immense as it is.

Agreed it's not all about size, if we can recreate the physicality and pace that we used against NZ so long ago then i'm confident South Africa couldn't live with us. Only perhaps a few changes are needed in the pack. What's more important is that the players chosen are a)fit b)playing the correct gameplan and c)giving 100% with no respect for their bodies. NZ beat SA regularly by showing no fear of their monster forwards, matching size with pace and technique and forcing SA to chase their gameplan rather then the other way round (and conning the ref).

1. Corbisiero - A must have he'll be key to dominating the scrums
2. Webber - Brings size and weight and carrying in the tight
3. Cole - Only marginal ahead of Wilson, Cole needs to be on top form in the loose as well
4. Lawes - Underrated but quality in the air, a true bruising tackler and a bit more gnarly then Launchberry
5. Attwood - The bulk to Lawes athleticism he also adds a whole heap of mongrel
6. Wood - Tackling, carrying and breakdown duties shared with Robshaw
7. Robshaw - As above
8. Morgan - Just carrying hard all game long

I like that pack, the front row are very scrum focussed but all mobile with two big carriers and Cole's breakdown skills. The second row can tackle anything coming at them all day long and Lawes is a brilliant lineout receiver as well while Attwood can call it and carry hard. Wood and Robshaw have done really well together in the past, with Wood and Morgan playing Robshaw made more turnovers then any other player on the planet when we toured SA, Wood again carries well in tight and Morgan can run anything in a little space, all three have good hands and can turn static ball into front foot ball.

Yappy thats not far off what could start. The Back row is a definate starter in the first AI...and i think its a pretty damn good back row. It has everything. The front row...i suspect Youngs will start. Hes a pocket battleship...and his breakdown work is bloomin good. Not too mention he likes getting his hands on the ball in the loose aswell...

Im still not convinced on Lawes...has he really fulfilled his potential? Whilst Gary Gold seems to be working wonders with Attwood.
Ironic that this would be the combo we were all talking about 5 years ago.

Im a fan of launchbury...he has so much and alongside Attwood could be immense. There will also be calls for Parlings inclusion...he was one of our best players in the 6n...if you go by the stats...and he's a lion.

I think we need to be sensible...

The game that sticks in everyones head is the Wales game. But if you look at the pack it was woefully unbalanced and underpowered, compared to first choice

1 Marler
2 Youngs
3 Cole
Corbs is quite a way ahead of the others...and in my opinion one of our truly world class players. A huge miss.

4 Launchbury
5 Parling
Played the whole tournament...but just not enough grunt ...play one of these with someone like Attwood. Whilst im a huge fan of Luanchbury...Parling possibly gives us a little more at the moment.

6 Croft
7 Robshaw
8 Wood
This was the biggest problem area. Croft and Wood shouldnt play together...and Wood should never play 8 for England again. Where is the heavy duty carrier..and in the whole team for that matter...

I suspect we may see the following start the first game

1 Corbs
2 Youngs
3 Cole
4 Attwood
5 Parling
6 Wood
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan

9 Youngs
10 Farrell
11 Wade
12 Twelvetrees
13 Tuilagi
14 Ashton
15 Foden

And i wouldnt be unhappy with that.

Interesting interview with Tom Wood in the Telegraph today

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10318904/Northampton-Saints-Tom-Wood-determined-to-captain-England-in-autumn-Test-series.html

Thought the point about him not being fully able to leg drive when he came back last season is quite interesting, I seem to remember him being a good carrier in 2011, and didn't see as much of it last year.

If he has that ability back as he says, he is missing nothing for a top drawer 6, very abrasive, strong defender, good at the breakdown, decent carrier and is a good lineout operator too

Definitely 1st choice 6 for me, even if Croft was fully fit

Englands back row in the first game will be Lancs easiest selection:
6 Wood
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan

Captaincy...well im not adverse to either Robshaw or Wood...they are the only two options in my mind though.

Article in the Guardian saying the England side don't know their best team:

The captaincy is an issue for Lancaster not only because of his options in the back row and a gameplan that is more expansive than it was in his first months in charge, but because he has reached the point where he needs, as far as possible, to know his first-choice team.

Other than Dan Cole at tighthead prop, Geoff Parling in the second row and, less certainly after his start to the season, Ben Morgan at No8 and Owen Farrell at fly-half, positions are open. Alex Corbisiero, Mako Vunipola and Joe Marler are tussling at loosehead prop; Hartley, Tom Youngs and Rob Webber are the options at hooker; Joe Launchbury and Courtney Lawes offer something different in the second row; the back row is open as are scrum-half, centre, wing and full-back,

Well I might be the only one, but I utterly disagree.

The following in my mind are effectively nailed on (by SL not me): Corbs, T Youngs, Cole, Parling, Launchbury (this one might be open), Wood, Morgan, B Youngs, Farrell, 12Trees (after BB is out this will happen), Manu.

That's most of the team! Include the bench : Mako, Hartley (??), Wilson, Either Attwood or Launchbury, Care, Burns, Eastmond.

Not many spaces left to my mind.............

Yeah i dont agree with that article Badger...

I don't keep up with current fashions. At the moment is it better to have depth and few definate starters or to have no depth but a settled team?

I prefer a mix...a core of definates..10-12 players...then depth aswell so we can change depending on opposition...

I don’t know if Lancaster should simply be aiming for one ‘core’ as long as he has clear game plans in place.

Personally I'd like to see Lancaster develop a squad with two experienced players who are interchangeable in each position. Our league is so abrasive, I don’t want to go back to the days when the first choice player gets injured and think ‘nooo!’ I certainly don’t want to go back to the days when we have to get players like Duncan Bell or Ayoola Erinle on the blower. To be honest I don’t want to go back to the days when Tom Wood played at no.8…

It is ambitious and will take time, but it is something that I think is achievable.

Agree Cumbrian but I would take it further than 2, we need to know the best 2 players and a good back up in each position (see NZ in 2011 final).

So where does that leave us light........who is the 3rd scrum half, 3rd tighthead, nail down our best backrow and establish who are the backups.

To be fair I think Bell was something like 8th choice Tighthead, with his back up Doran-Jones 13th choice.

We are never going to build 3 quality players in every position especially with the limited games available and injuries etc. We need a world beating first XV that can deal with perhaps 50% injuries. No team could lose more then that and expect to win the World Cup.

Imagine If New Zealand lost Woodcock, Mialamu, Mccaw, Reid, Carter, C Smith, B Smith and Dagg? They'd still be a tough nut to crack but not the unbeatable Blacks they are with their first XV.

We should though have a couple of 'Saxons' level players in every position who can theoretically jump in to any injury gaps that appear.

My main issue is I don't see great improvements in some of the players, and I'm not sure there is an effective structure in place to nurture top level talent. Lawes has never kicked on, and Attwood has taken an age. Some of it is just a dip in form, but also conditioning seems to be pretty average. I admit I know f-all about it but how many players do you see come back from pre-season and look fitter, stronger and more powerful?

Players like Morgan and the Vunipolas have enough talent to be the best in their positions. I genuinely believe that. But are we confident they'll kick on?

I see what you mean Hood...we seem to struggle at times turning "potential" and premiership standard in to top class international. We have many good internationals...but we seem to miss hitting that top echelon of top class ones.

I do think however this will change. In the past we were flooded with journeymen foreigners meaning the kids werent getting any exposure...now this has changed and clubs are giving the kids the games.

I also think one of our big flaws at age group level was our over reliance on size. I think this is a trend that is being changed by the academies now as they are working the skills far better. Even the BIG lads are forced to learn the skills...as they do in every other country.
This is only going to help as our size advantage in the Juniors was cancelled out in the seniors and the SH teams had better skills however those coming through now from the U20 WC winning side for example now will have the required skillz.

I read people saying that we don’t nurture talent to the highest level, but I’m not sure the talent has been there until relatively recently.

With the best will in the world, you are never going to be able to turn players like Louis Deacon, Steve Borthwick or Jamie Noon into world class players. They are good honest professionals, but they are never going to trouble world teams. The dearth of talent between 2004 and (around 2010) was dreadful. I reckon this has been addressed with 3-4 good generations of good U20’s and we are starting to see the results. However, we have to be patient because a lot of these players are still very young and/or inexperienced at international level ..

Also, I think we’re a bit underestimated at this. I mean look at Dan Cole and Alex Corbisiero, both (in my opinion) are close to best in the world in their positions and are 26 and 25 respectively- a good 4-5 years off their best. Joe Launchbury is a very good player now and long term I genuinely think he is being nurtured into a world class lock forward.

What can I say? I'm an optimist!  

I agree you can only work with what you have, but i think what Hood was suggesting and i agree to a degree is that players like Attwood, Lawes etc are players with more about them...yet seem to stall on the jump from juniors to the senior ranks.

Lawes and Attwood are good examples...both were actually talked off as being our future second row combo for 10 years...our Matfield and Botha.

Lawes just seems to have never hit the heights his talent suggested (he has injury problems which hasnt helped)...and Attwood at 26 is only starting to show the form people recognised as a youngster.

As you say though...i do think things have shifted quite considerably, and hopefully now we can start and help players actually reach their potential.

One question...who do you play.
For example Parling v Launchbury..its either or for me..not both.

Parling around 30, a good solid international lock, premiership winner and now a lion. Probably edging the young but "potentially" top class international Launchbury in performances at the moment. Do you pick the player for now - Parling...or do you pick the young guy and give him the games. Or does that depend on the rest of the team set up?