Starting England XV for the november internationals.

First topic message reminder :

Based on current form in the premiership, what would your ideal starting XV look like?
Mine would be

Corbs
Hartley
Cole
Attwood
Parling
Wood
Robshaw
Vunipola
youngs
Burns
twelvetrees
Tuilagi
Strettle
Yarde
Brown.

Yeah the wallabies are struggling i accept that but to say "oh we'll beat them because they are struggling against NZ and SA" does not really cut it i'm afraid.

They get a little time to analyse this RC and their weaknesses etc then when they play us it will seem like an easier game to them and their confidence will rise. They beat us last time at Twickenham remember after taking a humping from the French.

They do not fear England.

Tri, have you watched Folau and Genia play the past few matches? On current form we have 7 backs as good as them.

Triangulation,

Are you a glass half empty kind of guy...

But, to riff on your point- Australia have no available tight forwards of the quality of Corbisiero, Cole, or even Parling. As forwards win you matches, I'd say this is a bigger problem than the lack of a try scorer like Folau or a quality attacking scrum half. Both of which we have several in the EPS anyway

They beat us last time at Twickenham remember after taking a humping from the French.

Triangulation wrote:They beat us last time at Twickenham remember after taking a humping from the French.

Yes they did. that was a dismal performance by England. This time I believe that england will be better and australia worse - but we shall see come November.

Because it happened last time makes it more likely but still less likely than continuing their poor form. We beat NZ after a mediocre year last year. On your logic I should bet on that repeating too

Chequered

I'm simply saying dont write off the wallabies in the way that you and others seem to have done. It is not a good idea.

I'm telling you all for your own good that we are not good enough to beat any of the RC sides.

I wish it were otherwise but it isn't - we are a middling side at best sorry but there it is.

As a neutral, what S Lancaster is doing in England is impressive and the progress made in such a short time huge!

I agree that Australia's current plight is temporary and based on key players being injured, a new coach and of course the level of the oposition they have faced. November will be different and I am looking forward to seeing the progress made by Link.

Back to England who are building really nicely to RWC2015 and I think a lot of the hype and ridiculous expectation that was placed on England a the last RWC can this time correctly be placed.

Real depth, real skills, real speed and all really well managed and organised. Strong on defence and attack.

A bigger contended than Wales to me and third favourite behind the AB's and Boks for 2015 World Domination!

Triangulation wrote:Chequered

I'm simply saying dont write off the wallabies in the way that you and others seem to have done. It is not a good idea.

I'm telling you all for your own good that we are not good enough to beat any of the RC sides.

I wish it were otherwise but it isn't - we are a middling side at best sorry but there it is.

Thanks for looking out for my well being, but I disagree with what you are saying. Also even if we lose, I think I'll survive...

Triangulation has been predicting England doom in pretty much every international competition and series for years.  You've got to admire his steadfastness in sticking to his narrative, but his assertions really aren't worth taking too seriously.

Here are some examples when I questioned his stance a year or two back:

alcoombe wrote:Triangulation, how did your predictions about England's results in the 6N pan out?

Triangulation wrote:France are going to stuff us on Sunday and there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it. It will start with the restarts, scrums, lineouts and breakdown area and finish with a stuffing on the scoreboard.

France 22 - 24 England

Triangulation wrote:Let's focus on just how much of a schellacking your team (Ireland) is going to dish out to our collection of individuals.

We haven't a hope.

England 30 - 9 Ireland

I think he's trying to anti mockers us. Very noble

Just quickly, lets not completely write off the Ozzies. They've lost to the two best teams in the world this season. They were also in terrible form last season and still beat us then in a performance where their pack (that we're all mocking) utterly out played ours.

yappysnap wrote:Just quickly, lets not completely write off the Ozzies. They've lost to the two best teams in the world this season. They were also in terrible form last season and still beat us then in a performance where their pack (that we're all mocking) utterly out played ours.

+1

Australia may be able to up their game and beat us even though they've been pathetic for months but Argentina....really? Not in a month of Sundays.

If we get beaten by NZ and a fired up Aussie team, I can live with that. Losing to Argentina would be tough to accept, and a serious negative against Lancaster and co

Which team are the Aussies likley to be able to put out against us? I'm not sure who is likley to return from injury or what not.  For arguments sake put our team up against the team the Aussies put out against S.A.

15. Isreal Folau
14. Adam Ashley-Cooper
13. Tevita Kuridrani
12. Christian Lealiifano
11. Joseph Tomane

10. Quade Cooper
09. Nicholas White (Probably assume that Genia will be back)

08. Ben Mowen
07. Michael Hooper
06. Scott Fardy
05. James Horwill
04. Rob Simmons
03. Ben Alexander
02. Stephen Moore
01. James Slipper

Which of these guys do you think are better than there opposite numbers in the England squad?  For arguments sake will be:

01. Alex Corbisiero
02. Tom Youngs
03. Dan Cole
04. Joe Launchbury
05. Geoff Parling
06. Tom Wood
07. Chris Robshaw
08. Ben Morgan

09. Ben Youngs
10. Owen Farrell

11. Chris Ashton
12. Billy Twelvetrees
13. Jon Joseph?
14. Marland Yarde
15. Mike Brown

Front row?  England all the way IMO.  
Second row?  Pretty even.  
Back row?  I would take Hooper, but Robshaw is no mug and I would definitely give England the edge.
Half backs? Assuming England get forward dominance I would expect Farrell and Youngs to put us in the right areas all game long.
Centres? Both sets seem pretty inexperienced, would probably give it to Aus.
Back three?  Initially you'd be tempted to give it to Aus, but Mike Brown is an experienced full back (Folau isn't).  Ashton is getting so much criticism that people are actually starting to undervalue him.  Remember how many tries he scores when England actually attempt to attack...  Yarde has the potential to surprise the Aussies.

Individual vs. Individual, I don't think we have anything to worry about. It is all about how the team gells. If England clicks against a demoralised Aus team, the Wallabies could be in for a shoeing.

Well said Cumbrian. Whilst i agree, i do respect the Aussies just for being them. They will give us a game no matter what.

Id also think it will be Parling or launchbury in the second row, with Attwood. Probably Parling with Launchbury coming off the bench.

I think fatigue will play a big part in Australia's campaign... they have played a lot of test rugby this year.

3 matches vs. the lions
6 RC matches
1 Bledisloe Cup game
5 AI's.

15 test matches is serious rugby, especially given some of the brumbies will have played perhaps another 18 matches.

If they don't get a result on Saturday I could see them winning perhaps 1 other match all year.... imagine that, an Australian side with a calendar year record of played 15, won 2, lost 13. Would be amazing if it happened.

Indeed, I expect a tough game against them too. However, at home against a demoralised team, with 80,000 Englishmen baying for blood... I will be very upset if we lose.

their problems won't go away by magic. Its being exploited by everyone now and they seemingly have no answer.... with that their heads are seriously down.

I hadn't thought about the fatigue angle, that is a serious amount of punishing games for anyone to play. I assume it is similar for the Boks and Kiwis?

its not just the number of games... its the intensity of them.

3 Lions tests which were huge physical efforts, 6 RC games over 8 weeks on 3 continents... all massive games. Then they have to try and get themselves up for an away match vs. NZ for the Bledisloe coronation of NZ and then a 5 match winter slugfest vs. the home nations and Italy.
That is one tough schedule and  the galeforce ambush in Murrayfield is one I reckon they will dread the most.... the biggest banana skin of all.

I didnt realise Australia were playing so many either followed by :
England, Italy, Ireland, Scotland then ending with a trip to Cardiff....

Hard going.

Yea it was meant to be a victorious grand slam tour to follow their Lions victory...

Interesting how you are all enjoying the schadenfreude of the wallabies fatigue issues and long tour etc etc but have seemingly forgotten that we are their first AI opponents!

Good grief chaps please wake up.

Twickenham has long been pencilled in for the wallabies as a target must win game.

We'll see what happens. You think we're being too optimistic. I think you're being far too pessimistic. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle, we are far from certain to beat Australia but similarly they are nothing like the dominating odds on favourite you seem to have them as in your mind. And their season this year has been far worse than last year's or any other season I've seen from them while I've watched rugby

England should win at least 2 out of 3 in the AIs. NZ will be tougher than last time but it's important that the England guys have the belief they can win. Beating a side gives you confidence you can do it again and again.

Very true BS....and many of our players have found form again or made significant progress in their game...two examples being - Ashton looks a different person to the depressed figure on the wing for England last season, and Farrell has shown an increasing ability to make breaks and create things.

Add in new players like Yarde and Wade as competition for Ashton, Burns has been capped now and Davy Wilsons rejuvenation and Dave Attwoods return to the form we were all waiting for etc etc....then i think the Aussies or the Kiwis would be wise not to underestimate us either!

I'm a little apprehensive. I just think we're a notch beneath where we think we are. There are only a few players who make me think they either are or could be world class.

Pros:

- We have a good front-row with some depth now and some good options as subs. Props are a strength for us.
- A few players have come to form and suggested they could fill the power deficit we've suffered from in the pack - Attwood and B Vunipola in particular.
- We have options at 10 that are very different. Not world class, but Burns, Farrell and Flood does allow us to try a different approach
- The Argentina tour showed signs of an offloading game with some first-phase back moves

Cons:

- Tuilagi may be a blunt instrument, and overrated in my mind, but he's still the most penetrative back we have. He'll be missed
- We still have practically zero creativity from first-phase
- Our rucking went backwards through the last 6Ns and our pack seemed to run out of ideas.

Three things I want to see from these internationals, whether we win lose or draw.

1. Some set plays from first-phase...any. Unless we have Wade, our backs don't offer that 'something from nothing' quality. They do need to be better at drawing and passing, straightening a line and any number of other basics. I am NOT worried that the 'creativity will be coached out of them' - frankly, we need some innovative coaching in this area.

2. Explosive rucking that is fast, low and that goes beyond the gain-line, coupled with better protection AND some good quick decision making by ALL players, not just the 9. If it's a quick ruck and the opposition forwards aren't set, pick and go again. If it's clogged up, fine, spin it wide. I think our decision making at rucks needs to be much sharper.

3. Better defence round the fringes of rucks. Wales had a field day by overpowering us in this area. We need to be sharper here.

Geordiefalcon Ashton has had a rest. I think that helps. He's also had a spell of no controversy which is refreshing for him. Farrell is young and learning all the time. Personally I think his place kicking is world class which helps.

People have such high expectations they expect players to be the full article straight away and be in good form all the time.

Hood83 it's not surprising that Farrell,Burns and Ford are not yet world class.

George Ford needs to consistently prove himself for Bath first. Burns has just a handful of caps - a tour against a 2nd string Argentina doesn't tell us much.

Farrell is the most experienced of the trio but he still has aspects of his game that need to be developed more. I would say Farrell is international class.


Agree with most of what you say though.

I really think the results matter less then the performance.

If we can bring our A game to all three matches, that's the forwards playing with maximum intensity, all players hitting rucks like human missiles, offloading out of tackles and keeping the ball while using it to create space and then every player taking the chance for points whenever they're offered.

If we can manage this every match then the result should take care of itself. We need to lose the 'a win is a win' mentality that lead to so many 1 point kick fest wins, and build our 'play rugby no matter what mentality'.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon Ashton has had a rest. I think that helps. He's also had a spell of no controversy which is refreshing for him. Farrell is young and learning all the time. Personally I think his place kicking is world class which helps.

People have such high expectations they expect players to be the full article straight away and be in good form all the time.

Hood83 it's not surprising that Farrell,Burns and Ford are not yet world class.

George Ford needs to consistently prove himself for Bath first. Burns has just a handful of caps - a tour against a 2nd string Argentina doesn't tell us much.

Farrell is the most experienced of the trio but he still has aspects of his game that need to be developed more. I would say Farrell is international class.


Agree with most of what you say though.

I included Flood not Ford, but you're right and it's not intended as an accusation or criticism towards Farrell or Burns. Flood also I think is very good and underrated. However, Cruden and Barrett have seemingly improved VERY quickly. Yes there are still some deficiencies, but they have kicked on much quicker. Might just be a result of the opposition they've played. I think you're right re Farrell already being international class. Just need guys to kick on. Farrell's lack of pace is still a bit of a concern to me as it's pretty unfixable.

Yappysnap I disagree.

Winning builds confidence and belief.

Also it depends what you mean "play rugby no matter what mentality". Is playing rugby chucking the ball around with reckless abandon?

Earning the right to go wide has been a very successful blueprint.

If we beat the ABs by 1 point in a kick fest I will take that. To beat the ABs will take a good performance in one shape or another.

Winning when not hitting the high notes is the sign of a good side.

I want England to be more like Leicester,Sarries,Bath and Saints than Quins,Gloucester and London Irish with all due respect.

Good solid basics first and foremost. The flash stuff is the sprinkling on the cake - it's not integral.

beshocked wrote:Yappysnap I disagree.

Winning builds confidence and belief.

Also it depends what you mean "play rugby no matter what mentality". Is playing rugby chucking the ball around with reckless abandon?

Earning the right to go wide has been a very successful blueprint.

If we beat the ABs by 1 point in a kick fest I will take that. To beat the ABs will take a good performance in one shape or another.

Winning when not hitting the high notes is the sign of a good side.

I want England to be more like Leicester,Sarries,Bath and Saints than Quins,Gloucester and London Irish with all due respect.

Good solid basics first and foremost. The flash stuff is the sprinkling on the cake - it's not integral.

It isn't enough to be like Bath, Sarries and Saints against the ABs. It isn't enough to win a world cup either. I agree we need the basics, who doesn't think that. If our set-piece, rucking, defence, kick-chase etc. is all worse these AIs that's a big concern. But no less of a concern than zero creativity in the backs. We've shown time and again in tournaments our pack can just about pull itself together regardless of the occasionally awful coaching. We've not shown any signs our back-play can do similarly.

Hell, for Quins' approach to work the basics need to be right, that's a reason why we've not done as well in the past few months

Hood83 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon Ashton has had a rest. I think that helps. He's also had a spell of no controversy which is refreshing for him. Farrell is young and learning all the time. Personally I think his place kicking is world class which helps.

People have such high expectations they expect players to be the full article straight away and be in good form all the time.

Hood83 it's not surprising that Farrell,Burns and Ford are not yet world class.

George Ford needs to consistently prove himself for Bath first. Burns has just a handful of caps - a tour against a 2nd string Argentina doesn't tell us much.

Farrell is the most experienced of the trio but he still has aspects of his game that need to be developed more. I would say Farrell is international class.


Agree with most of what you say though.

I included Flood not Ford, but you're right and it's not intended as an accusation or criticism towards Farrell or Burns. Flood also I think is very good and underrated. However, Cruden and Barrett have seemingly improved VERY quickly. Yes there are still some deficiencies, but they have kicked on much quicker. Might just be a result of the opposition they've played. I think you're right re Farrell already being international class. Just need guys to kick on. Farrell's lack of pace is still a bit of a concern to me as it's pretty unfixable.

Remember Cruden and Barrett are in the NZ backline (both are older than Farrell, Cruden is older than Burns). Playing with those kind of players helps improve them more just as it seems Farrell has been helped his development going on the Lions tour. NZ have arguably the best pack in the world - having that kind of platform helps. Equally Flood having the Leicester pack and Farrell has the Sarries pack help them. Ford has the bath one too.

It's obvious when your pack is in the ascendancy it makes your job easier.

Even Carter looked poor when his NZ pack were getting beaten up by England - he had two poor misses with the boot.

Burns has had perhaps the toughest time with the Gloucester pack but he does have an excellent backrow as support now.

If Brown can improve his pace I am sure other players can too.

Flood is probably international class too - he's put in some good performances for England but he's never really found consistency despite not having that much competition other than Wilkinson up until the emergence of Farrell and Burns etc.

I thought in his recent caps for England he has been lacklustre - e.g. vs Australia,South Africa and Italy. Not entirely his own fault of course but for example vs South Africa at Twickenham, Farrell almost steered to England to victory when he replaced Flood ( if Farrell started the match, England might have won in my opinion).

People have such high expectations they expect players to be the full article straight away and be in good form all the time

On the contrary Beshocked i dont expect that. I appreciate new kids coming through have to learn the game.

What i expect though i that players being selected as the first choice in the country especially at a critical position of FH should have already developed a certain skill level regardless of age.

For me - and the reason i have been so critical of Farrell is that he DIDNT have the required skill range and has almost used the England spot as a training school.

I appreciate Farrell has a lot to offer his kicking, his defence, his controlling aspect...and that he is so young aswell! Im also delighted to see that it appears to be working, and he has developed his game, but i dont think that should be a standard.

Players need to earn the right to play for England. To play for England they should have a minimum skill set and standard for that position.

Geordiefalcon Farrell did earn the right to play for England.

Farrell won the AP as a 20 year old with a 100% kicking record in the final, outperforming the current England fly half of the time, Flood.

In Farrell's "development" period England only lost 1 match in the 6 nations.

I suppose I should ask what sort of quality of place kicking and defence do you think you need to play for England?

You need to give players a chance to see if they are good enough.

Farrell is unfashionable because he's not particularly quick and doesn't make flashy breaks but he is a very reassuring presence when it comes to place kicking.


Just compare Farrell to Cipriani when Cipriani gave 4 charge downs in a row to the opposition.

Would you rather bring back Danny into the England side?

Farrell was asked to do a job in controlling the game, making his kicks and being a good defender which he did superbly. I think pretty much throughout the team the message was be solid. I think the next thing Lancaster wants to do is bring through some flair in the backs and some creativity. I think Farrell is extremelt capable of playing some more open rugby but I think Burns has improved his defense notably, is making his kicks and is placing a lot of pressure on Farrell for the starting slot which is great for England.

Flood to me is backup for these 2.

Ah im sorry i shouldnt be critical of a Saracens player...not matter what i say ill be wrong.

I also like the fact that Farrell has a real edge to him. He can be aggressive and wont get pushed around. As long as he can keep things from boiling over...

Geordiefalcon being critical is fine but saying he didn't earn the right/deserve to play for England is a bit far fetched. You make some good points. We all know Farrell's limitations and flaws but he's working on them.

You've got to hope that players can improve their weaknesses. I just feel you have unrealistic expectations - a 10 can't put on a England shirt and expect to be like Dan Carter.

No 7&1/2 I remember reading that Burns had a 66% kicking rate in the AP compared to Farrell's 83%. That's quite a difference. I think Burns is a good player and adds a nice contrast to Farrell but to me (perhaps it's just bias talking) I want a reliable kicker first and foremost. Burns will undoubtedbly get his chance and we'll see what he can do.

Then again you could argue it would make sense to play Burns and 36 together as at 10 and 12 combo. If Burns got the nod on that basis I wouldn't be upset.

For the record I believe Robshaw gets far too much criticism.

Funny how everyone forgets the utter frustration he caused by the endless kicking straight to the opposition.

This AI is going to be VERY interesting as regards England. I expect to see some serious attacking intent. Yes the ship has settled..basics have been worked on...but time to move on and show we can actually make other teams fear us.

Farrell did win the AP as a 20 year old and kicking brilliantly. Did he out perform Flood? Off the tee certainly but there were no line breaks or attacking moves from Farrell. Other than a de Kock break and a quickly taken lineout by Goode which led to the try the Sarries backline showed nothing in attack. Burger and is unbelievable kick chase as the Sarries team kicked the leather off the ball were key factors. Even now ball in hand Farrell is less of a threat than Ford, Flood and Burns. He has an awesome points kicking record and tackles like a flanker but his game control isn't that great either. He was a very safe and uninspiring option and against Wales was shown up as lacking any attacking verve.

Other than 10s need to earn their chance, fair enough. Farrell was shoe horned in initially and has then kept the shirt despite some indifferent form, he needs to show he has enough to hold onto it.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon being critical is fine but saying he didn't earn the right/deserve to play for England is a bit far fetched. You make some good points. We all know Farrell's limitations and flaws but he's working on them.

You've got to hope that players can improve their weaknesses. I just feel you have unrealistic expectations - a 10 can't put on a England shirt and expect to be like Dan Carter.

No 7&1/2 I remember reading that Burns had a 66% kicking rate in the AP compared to Farrell's 83%. That's quite a difference. I think Burns is a good player and adds a nice contrast to Farrell but to me (perhaps it's just bias talking) I want a reliable kicker first and foremost. Burns will undoubtedbly get his chance and we'll see what he can do.

Then again you could argue it would make sense to play Burns and 36 together as at 10 and 12 combo. If Burns got the nod on that basis I wouldn't be upset.

For the record I believe Robshaw gets far too much criticism.

I think Burns is better than that. Not sure what period the 60% would relate to but I'm sure his overall kicking stats are mid 80s, farrell is slightly better though. I personally would have Farrell as starter but Burns will get a chance off the bench nodoubt.

Geordiefalcon being critical is fine but saying he didn't earn the right/deserve to play for England is a bit far fetched. You make some good points. We all know Farrell's limitations and flaws but he's working on them.

Mate, he was a 19/20 old with a very solid foundation of skills and good physcial stats who was sharing his gametime with Hodgson. Indeed half the time he was playing at 13 etc. Is that the basis for someone to start for England at 10?

Ive said above im delighted he is showing signs of development, and if he can take what hes done so far this season to the AI's (and continue to develop) then it looks like we have a real deal 10 to lead us through the next 2/3 world cups.

Other than 10s need to earn their chance, fair enough. Farrell was shoe horned in initially and has then kept the shirt despite some indifferent form, he needs to show he has enough to hold onto it..

Sam, you said in one line what ive been trying to say  

Sam yes he did outperform Flood. Flood was lacklustre that day. He couldn't break down the stubborn Sarries defence. Manu was sorely missed - I genuinely believe that if he was not banned Leicester would have won. I agree Farrell didn't really show much threat in attack but that's never been a strength of his. He's improving on it.

Flood didn't show attacking verve vs Italy or Australia or South Africa. It's not exactly as if it was just Farrell who failed to spark England into life. I think it was a team issue.

The problems start with the forwards. Farrell has shown that with a good enough performance from the forwards he can get the team scoring tries - e.g. vs NZ and Scotland.

I wouldn't say fly half is a problem position for England.