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.

ChequeredJersey wrote:For me:

15- Brown/Foden (he's found form so I wouldn't be adverse to him starting)
14- Yarde
13- Joseph (but playing for his spot in the EPS as I think other options are in better form and not sure he looks likely to progress as once expected)
12- Twelvetrees
11- Ashton - Wade on his tail
10- Farrell
9- Youngs (Care on his tail)
8- Morgan - Vunipola on his tail
7- Robshaw
6- Wood
5- Attwood
4- Parling
3- Wilson
2- Youngs
1- Corbs

Vunipola, Webber, Cole, Launchbury, Kvesic, Care , Burns, Tait if he's fit, if not one of Brown and Foden

Certainly agree with you regarding 3 - Wilson. At the end of last season Cole looked knackered, the rest will have done him good at the start of the season. I hope he starts to rediscover his form now though and pushes for a place.

With regards to Tait, i can see him being there on the bench if he continues where he left of last season. He put in some brilliant performances.

I imagine Brown will get the 23 shirt if Foden starts. Not sure if that's a good use of the bench spot though.

I might be being negative but neither Youngs or Care have consistently impressed me at 9.  They both seem to have all the tools, but neither seem to be able to put together a consistent run of games.  Youngs was particularly disappointing for the Lions - I thought he had the chance to be the starting 9 for all 3 tests, but came out of the tour as firmly third choice.  I did have high hopes for Joe Simpson, but he hasn't really kicked on.
Hopefully SL can get someone to work with Youngs and Care to get some kind of consistency - Dawson and Bracken seemed to spur each other on, whereas it seems to be a case of Youngs or Care get benched in favour of the other.

I would go for (taking account of the injured):-

Foden
Yarde
Trinder
Twelvetrees
Wade
Burns
Youngs

Morgan
Robshaw
Wood
Parling
Attwood
Wilson
Webber
Corbisiero

with

M.Vunipola
Youngs
Cole
Launchbury
B.Vunipola

Care
Farrell
Daley (can cover fullback, centre and wing).

on the bench.

Slighly lightweight in the backs, but has pace.  Brown and Foden are very close, and Brown would offer more weight but if Brown does not start I do not see him on the bench whereas Foden could be.

Lots of inexperienced centres (with ability), but difficult to choose between.   In the forwards I would like to see Slater given a chance, but I really think we need one of either Attwood or Slater to 'beef-up' the second row.

regards

CB

nlpnlp wrote:I might be being negative but neither Youngs or Care have consistently impressed me at 9.  They both seem to have all the tools, but neither seem to be able to put together a consistent run of games.  Youngs was particularly disappointing for the Lions - I thought he had the chance to be the starting 9 for all 3 tests, but came out of the tour as firmly third choice.  I did have high hopes for Joe Simpson, but he hasn't really kicked on.
Hopefully SL can get someone to work with Youngs and Care to get some kind of consistency - Dawson and Bracken seemed to spur each other on, whereas it seems to be a case of Youngs or Care get benched in favour of the other.

Wouldn't exactly say either Care or Youngs haven't been consistent. Youngs looked knackered playing for the Lions. Neither 9 would of been helped by a lack of creativity alongside them.

nathan wrote:

nlpnlp wrote:I might be being negative but neither Youngs or Care have consistently impressed me at 9.  They both seem to have all the tools, but neither seem to be able to put together a consistent run of games.  Youngs was particularly disappointing for the Lions - I thought he had the chance to be the starting 9 for all 3 tests, but came out of the tour as firmly third choice.  I did have high hopes for Joe Simpson, but he hasn't really kicked on.
Hopefully SL can get someone to work with Youngs and Care to get some kind of consistency - Dawson and Bracken seemed to spur each other on, whereas it seems to be a case of Youngs or Care get benched in favour of the other.

Wouldn't exactly say either Care or Youngs haven't been consistent. Youngs looked knackered playing for the Lions. Neither 9 would of been helped by a lack of creativity alongside them.

Both were instrumental for their clubs last season, as mentioned Youngs was probably over played as well.

Neither have shown their very best for England but then that's probably more to do with a. The England pack not delivering good ball, b. The England attack being devoid of creativity and c. The tactics they seem to have to use are kick first pass second and don't ever run it.

Yappysnap I think the biggest problem with Care and Youngs is neither are the snappiest, quickest passers of the ball. Certainly compared to a player like Stringer or Bracken for example.

In my opinion the scrum half's main job is making sure the backs get quick ball. I never get that feeling when Youngs and Care play for England.

Unfortunately not many 9s actually do that.

I thought Youngs was good last season including internationals. Just the season before that he was lacklustre. Care has been very inconsistent for England though for Quins he has been excellent.

Both players are great when their side has lots of momentum but when their packs are under pressure, they suffer accordingly.

nlpnlp wrote:I might be being negative but neither Youngs or Care have consistently impressed me at 9.  They both seem to have all the tools, but neither seem to be able to put together a consistent run of games.  Youngs was particularly disappointing for the Lions - I thought he had the chance to be the starting 9 for all 3 tests, but came out of the tour as firmly third choice.  I did have high hopes for Joe Simpson, but he hasn't really kicked on.
Hopefully SL can get someone to work with Youngs and Care to get some kind of consistency - Dawson and Bracken seemed to spur each other on, whereas it seems to be a case of Youngs or Care get benched in favour of the other.

I can see the point. Club performances have already been covered, where both players are instrumental for their club sides. Coming into an England set-up for the past few years which has been shaky as a unit and offered little creativity certainly hasn't helped matters.

I thought Youngs played his best game for England in the second test against South Africa last year. He looked very sharp and hungry. Conversely by the time the Lions tour came around he had probably played just that bit too much.

Care I feel has suffered from an England perspective on the basis that he hasn't had much of a run in the side recently. Given the leeway to string some games together and allowed to settle he could be a superb attacking weapon for England.

Right now Youngs just offers more versatility in his game, better box kicking and less prone to continually snipe at every opportunity.

Too be fair aside from a decent game v the AB's, the England team on a whole has been devoid of much attacking play or exciting the crowd.

Im afraid i MUST see a little bit more of that over the next series of AI's and 6n or ill begin to question where Lancs and his coaching team are taking us....

Sometimes i wonder at some of our players performances...they can be adventurous, risky, enthusiastic and creative for their clubs yet they seem so subdued and put in shackles when they represent the national team.

Do you think the coaches gameplan is that restrictive? Devoid of any risk taking or runing with the ball...

GeordieFalcon wrote:Too be fair aside from a decent game v the AB's, the England team on a whole has been devoid of much attacking play or exciting the crowd.

Im afraid i MUST see a little bit more of that over the next series of AI's and 6n or ill begin to question where Lancs and his coaching team are taking us....

Sometimes i wonder at some of our players performances...they can be adventurous, risky, enthusiastic and creative for their clubs yet they seem so subdued and put in shackles when they represent the national team.

Do you think the coaches gameplan is that restrictive? Devoid of any risk taking or runing with the ball...

I think up until now the emphasis has been on exactly that GF. Andy Farrell has ruled the roost in terms of general play and whether it be a 'laying the ground work' sort of exercise or the belief in a super-aggressive defence I don't know but it's undoubtedly restricted the team in terms of what they produce.

If we take the excellent win over the ABs as a case in point - that tactics in that game were kick long and chase hard. What won us that game was the commitment of the forward pack to hit hard and compete at the breakdown. NZ just weren't expecting the intensity, they knew we'd kick to them but the chase and D was such that it put them off their game.

Owen Farrell put in an excellent defensive and kicking display in the first half and we kicked every penalty we were offered. In the second half NZ came back and rather than fall away the England intensity actually rose. They were incentivised to win at all costs. They did that well and the tries scored came from that pressure. C Smith falling off a tackle and Tuilagi making an intercept. Great performance but built on conservative foundations.

Rather than look to run the ball from everywhere aka the Wallabies what i'd like to see is some invention that is unusual. Look at NZ v SA recently, the ABs kick to the corner early after a poor Habana kick. Odd given SA have such a good maul attack and defence. But NZ perform a very nifty fake shift drive to eventually send Read over the line.

It's that sort of thing that we seem to lack. Little to no invention, and if there is either an inability to execute on the field or no attempt at doing so.

Geordiefalcon you forget England smashing Scotland.

In both those games Morgan started at no 8. His injury meant we had an unbalanced backrow in other matches.

But Beshoked, should one player missing change our whole game...

Im not looking for fijian / old french style throw it around run from anywhere rugby....im just looking for us actually be prepared to run with the ball, support offload...create chances and take them efficiently.

Rugby should be built on foundations...a solid core defence, set piece...but after that you need to score points and make things happen when you have the ball...and we seem restricted in what we do...be it managment orders...or player ability (and im not convinced its the latter...)

Youngs also was carrying a shoulder injury in the latter parts of the Lions tour. Issues of him playing while injured in the 2nd tyest, perhaps giving Phillips more time for his knee to heal have been covered elsewhere on these forums.

On thing that strikes me about Care is that for Quins he seems to do pretty much everything all the time he is on the pitch. I do wonder if that style of play can be a limitation at international level.

No geordiefalcon it shouldn't but without Ben Morgan we've lacked a big ball carrier to help get us over the gainline. You need guys who can create space, gaps and opportunities for players to exploit. Morgan is a player whose difficult to stop which means players look to marshall him.

Perhaps the Vunipola bros can fill this role.

An in form and injury free Tuilagi is another of these powerful ball carriers that every side could do with.

beshocked wrote:No geordiefalcon it shouldn't but without Ben Morgan we've lacked a big ball carrier to help get us over the gainline. You need guys who can create space, gaps and opportunities for players to exploit. Morgan is a player whose difficult to stop which means players look to marshall him.

Perhaps the Vunipola bros can fill this role.  

An in form and injury free Tuilagi is another of these powerful ball carriers that every side could do with.

Yes you need the balance in a team and certainly in the BR. Our lack of ball carriers in the 6N was a clear disadvantage and this was borne out post the Scotland game. Indeed the worst game of all was v Italy as I remember. A dreadful performance which put me in mind of a certain Autumn International when we played in Purple. I've never seen an international side look quite so mystified as to what to do with the ball.

Playing front foot is really key. The issue I raised above though is about inventive tactics and those don't seem to come up very often. One would've thought for example that given our highly mobile pack we would've had an awesome line-out with which to launch all sorts of inventive plays from. We didn't and we saw no plays.

I appreciate that beshocked...it is critical to have serious carriers to punch holes...ive been saying that for a long time...and with Billy also out it was more difficult...but im concerned that our whole game plan should come unstuck because one  player was out.
Hopefully Billy V and as you say Mako V can help in this area.

I guess we'll see this Autumn...but ill be looking for big improvements....

Unless he steps up his performance I'm not so sure we'll see Morgan start at 8. He was a key player for England last season, but the first match of this for Gloucester he was anonymous and looked knackered after the first half. He was subbed off after 50mins and has been on the bench since with little impact.

alcoombe wrote:Unless he steps up his performance I'm not so sure we'll see Morgan start at 8.  He was a key player for England last season, but the first match of this for Gloucester he was anonymous and looked knackered after the first half.  He was subbed off after 50mins and has been on the bench since with little impact.

He's not started the season well at all I agree. If you check out his performances for England in Argentina though there's are real glimpses of the sort of player he can be. Some good carrying, defence but a great reading of the game and some lovely handling as well. He just has more to offer than Billy V at the moment but he's catching fast.

Not feeling that optimistic over the AI at the moment - hope I'm proved wrong

Chjw131 wrote:

alcoombe wrote:Unless he steps up his performance I'm not so sure we'll see Morgan start at 8.  He was a key player for England last season, but the first match of this for Gloucester he was anonymous and looked knackered after the first half.  He was subbed off after 50mins and has been on the bench since with little impact.

He's not started the season well at all I agree. If you check out his performances for England in Argentina though there's are real glimpses of the sort of player he can be. Some good carrying, defence but a great reading of the game and some lovely handling as well. He just has more to offer than Billy V at the moment but he's catching fast.

I'm quite aware of how he has played, that's why I said "he was a key Player for England last season", the problem is that he's not playing near that at the moment, or sufficient game time to bring things around.  If this continues, starting him in the AIs would be selection based on past performances rather than form, which is a sorry road England has been down before.  Still 5 weeks to go till the Oz match though, so hopefully he can get himself back to where he was, but on current form Vunipola is offering more.

lostinwales wrote:Not feeling that optimistic over the AI at the moment - hope I'm proved wrong

Depends how Australia improve- they've been dire and so I think 2/3 as it stands must be a minimum. Then les see how much of a fluke last year's win vs NZ actually was

beshocked wrote:No geordiefalcon it shouldn't but without Ben Morgan we've lacked a big ball carrier to help get us over the gainline. You need guys who can create space, gaps and opportunities for players to exploit. Morgan is a player whose difficult to stop which means players look to marshall him.

Perhaps the Vunipola bros can fill this role.  

An in form and injury free Tuilagi is another of these powerful ball carriers that every side could do with.

The thing about Care is that Quins use their SH differently to many other teams- in many ways he is more the pace setter for us than Nev is

alcoombe wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

alcoombe wrote:Unless he steps up his performance I'm not so sure we'll see Morgan start at 8.  He was a key player for England last season, but the first match of this for Gloucester he was anonymous and looked knackered after the first half.  He was subbed off after 50mins and has been on the bench since with little impact.

He's not started the season well at all I agree. If you check out his performances for England in Argentina though there's are real glimpses of the sort of player he can be. Some good carrying, defence but a great reading of the game and some lovely handling as well. He just has more to offer than Billy V at the moment but he's catching fast.

I'm quite aware of how he has played, that's why I said "he was a key Player for England last season", the problem is that he's not playing near that at the moment, or sufficient game time to bring things around.  If this continues, starting him in the AIs would be selection based on past performances rather than form, which is a sorry road England has been down before.  Still 5 weeks to go till the Oz match though, so hopefully he can get himself back to where he was, but on current form Vunipola is offering more.

Yeah, Morgan would have been my first choice for the Autumn, but he's looking well off the pace at present.  From what I've seen of them both so far this season Vunipola may still have areas to work on but he's definitely the more in form player.  Morgan quite simply just isn't doing what he can and seems to have lost fitness again in the pre-season.

Well this thread gathered some momentum!
Is Lee Dickson still around? I know Saints have that somoan scrum half, but they do rotate well at Saints to keep the players fresh. I know Austin Healy really rates him, so could he possibly be the starting 9?

Nah, he's a good 3rd choice 9, and a good 9 all in all who offers different things to the other 2 contenders (though i think Wrigglesworth does everything he does better) but he's clearly behind Care and Youngs in the eyes of the coaching staff, and IMO should be based on past performances and form

mbernz wrote:

alcoombe wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

alcoombe wrote:Unless he steps up his performance I'm not so sure we'll see Morgan start at 8.  He was a key player for England last season, but the first match of this for Gloucester he was anonymous and looked knackered after the first half.  He was subbed off after 50mins and has been on the bench since with little impact.

He's not started the season well at all I agree. If you check out his performances for England in Argentina though there's are real glimpses of the sort of player he can be. Some good carrying, defence but a great reading of the game and some lovely handling as well. He just has more to offer than Billy V at the moment but he's catching fast.

I'm quite aware of how he has played, that's why I said "he was a key Player for England last season", the problem is that he's not playing near that at the moment, or sufficient game time to bring things around.  If this continues, starting him in the AIs would be selection based on past performances rather than form, which is a sorry road England has been down before.  Still 5 weeks to go till the Oz match though, so hopefully he can get himself back to where he was, but on current form Vunipola is offering more.

Yeah, Morgan would have been my first choice for the Autumn, but he's looking well off the pace at present.  From what I've seen of them both so far this season Vunipola may still have areas to work on but he's definitely the more in form player.  Morgan quite simply just isn't doing what he can and seems to have lost fitness again in the pre-season.

Have to agree, been v disappointed by Morgan. Hoped both would raise the other's games, but it seems not. Vunipola is still far from the finished article, but when it comes together for him he looks potentially world class.

Chjw131 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Too be fair aside from a decent game v the AB's, the England team on a whole has been devoid of much attacking play or exciting the crowd.

Im afraid i MUST see a little bit more of that over the next series of AI's and 6n or ill begin to question where Lancs and his coaching team are taking us....

Sometimes i wonder at some of our players performances...they can be adventurous, risky, enthusiastic and creative for their clubs yet they seem so subdued and put in shackles when they represent the national team.

Do you think the coaches gameplan is that restrictive? Devoid of any risk taking or runing with the ball...

I think up until now the emphasis has been on exactly that GF. Andy Farrell has ruled the roost in terms of general play and whether it be a 'laying the ground work' sort of exercise or the belief in a super-aggressive defence I don't know but it's undoubtedly restricted the team in terms of what they produce.

If we take the excellent win over the ABs as a case in point - that tactics in that game were kick long and chase hard. What won us that game was the commitment of the forward pack to hit hard and compete at the breakdown. NZ just weren't expecting the intensity, they knew we'd kick to them but the chase and D was such that it put them off their game.

Owen Farrell put in an excellent defensive and kicking display in the first half and we kicked every penalty we were offered. In the second half NZ came back and rather than fall away the England intensity actually rose. They were incentivised to win at all costs. They did that well and the tries scored came from that pressure. C Smith falling off a tackle and Tuilagi making an intercept. Great performance but built on conservative foundations.

Rather than look to run the ball from everywhere aka the Wallabies what i'd like to see is some invention that is unusual. Look at NZ v SA recently, the ABs kick to the corner early after a poor Habana kick. Odd given SA have such a good maul attack and defence. But NZ perform a very nifty fake shift drive to eventually send Read over the line.

It's that sort of thing that we seem to lack. Little to no invention, and if there is either an inability to execute on the field or no attempt at doing so.

Excellent post. I agree, a massive problem is a both a lack of instinctiveness and zero first-phase plays.

To be honest I think the performances count more then the results this AI's.

We need to dominate Argentina and get plenty of attacking plays going while showing a strong defence. Another stodge fest of a win would be worse then a draw or a close win withsome good rugby.

Against Oz our pack need to do to them what the SA and NZ teams have done, if we can't repeat that then it's an issue that needs to be rectified. Remember they came in to the last AI's off the back of some terrible displays and then absolutely dominated us physically. We can't let that happen again.

Even if we end up losing I want us to play NZ like we did last time, 100% rugby, leave everything on the pitch, smash anything in black and always move in groups. NZ might manage to deal with it this time but if we can bring that game plan against them then it means we can bring it against anyone.

So if we are focusing on a style of bonejuddering offensive defence, smashing the breakdown at pace, then efficiently using the ball (no flamboyance, just brutal effiency)....have we picked the correct players...or have we just been unlucky with injuries?

PS I would be very happy with that style...it would be physical and exciting to watch...and whilst I have seen a huge improvement in our breakdown work...i wouldnt say we were utterly smashing it...and i certainly havent seen anything like a bonesmashing offensive defence that i believe this style would need.

Chequeredjersey I don't think Wigglesworth is good enough unfortunately. He's another 9 I wish passed the ball quicker.

flankertye I would agree with chequeredjersey. I don't think Dickson is good enough to be above Care and Youngs.

Agree witrh the comments about Morgan vs Billy. Morgan needs to rediscover some form before the AIs or there is a danger he'll miss out.

Whatever happens - we need to make sure that there is some grunt in the back row. I think we can all agree that Wood at no.8 wasn't ideal.
Perhaps not on current form - but the guys in possession (not including current injuries) are -

Corbis
Youngs
Cole
Parling
Launchbury
Wood
Robshaw
Morgan
Youngs
Farrell
Ashton
Twelvetrees
Eastmond?
Yarde
Brown

Or how about working on units...

Sarries are steamrollering everyone...why not just pick the sarries side with the non English replaced by the best Englishman in that position...that would give us something like:

1 Mako V
2 T.Youngs
3 M.Stevens
4 Kruis
5 Borthwick
6 Billy V
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan

9 Wigglesworth
10 Farrell
11 Stettle
12 Twelvetrees
13 Tomkins
14 Ashton
15 Goode

Ah beautiful! I do hope to see Stevens and Borthwick in England jerseys at Murrayfield come the 6 Nations!

For what it's worth, the thoughts of a Scot:

1.Corbisiero 2.T Youngs 3.Cole 4.Attwood 5.Launchbury 6.Wood 7.Robshaw 8.Morgan 9.Care 10.Farrell 11.Wade 12.Twelvetrees 13.Joseph 14.Ashton 15.Foden

16.Wilson 17.Webber 18.M Vunipola 19.Lawes 20.B Vunipola 21.B Youngs 22.Burns 23.Goode

Ah beautiful! I do hope to see Stevens and Borthwick in England jerseys at Murrayfield come the 6 Nations!

Yeah possibly dishearten a few English fans aswell...

Interesting you'd go for Launchbury over Parling though FES...Palring the Lion, premiership winner etc...that seems to be a debate in itself...

Is it true that Yarde's fathers name is Scotland?

GunsGerms wrote:Is it true that Yarde's fathers name is Scotland?

According to the interview I read this weekend, yes.

Good job they did not name Marland after his dad, then he would have been New Scotland Yarde

Gas name isnt it.

GunsGerms wrote:Gas name isnt it.

Sorry, do not understand what this means.

LondonTiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Gas name isnt it.

Sorry, do not understand what this means.

Oh right, I assumed gas was used in the Uk too to mean humorous.

FES you would want one of the best lineout operators in the world to play vs Scotland? Fair enough.

Geordiefalcon even I wouldn't want that XV. Still think Borthwick is one of the most underrated players around though.

Aw i know mate...i wouldnt either...just making a point about how units and understanding a system (which most Sarries players would) could be useful.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Aw i know mate...i wouldnt either...just making a point about how units and understanding a system (which most Sarries players would) could be useful.

Well we could look at the same exercise using the current champions:

Corbs
Youngs
Cole
Slater
Parling
Wood (Croft out)
Robshaw
Crane
Youngs
Flood
Thompstone
Allen
Tuilagi
Ashton/Wade/Yarde
Tait


But i would rather we did not

Is Borthwick under rated? He was poor in an England shirt, but he's been consistently brilliant at club level ever back to the days he was in the dream Borthwick/Grewcock combination. We certainly mourned his loss when he left.

Yes Bathite I think he is. Much maligned by England fans. A scapegoat for Martin Johnson's failings. Wasn't exactly part of a particularly strong English team. I believe with the right balance in the pack he would have been more successful for England.

I think he gets as much blame for some of his lacklustre post match talks than he does for his performances on the pitch.

Still got 57 caps for England.

He could have been a potent weapon in a properly balanced team Beshocked...i dont doubt that. Parling isnt at his level in the lineout..not many are.

LT, i agree you could indeed build around a Tigers team aswell...

Borthwick -I dont think he was as bad as all that but the big thing that sums his international career the most for me is the fact that when he was gone he wasnt missed at all

I think the question always was...at international level do you need to be more than just one thing. Ie Whilst undoutedly world class in the lineout...did he do enough elsewhere to warrant his position...thats what divided peoples opinions...

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Ah beautiful! I do hope to see Stevens and Borthwick in England jerseys at Murrayfield come the 6 Nations!

Yeah possibly dishearten a few English fans aswell...

Interesting you'd go for Launchbury over Parling though FES...Palring the Lion, premiership winner etc...that seems to be a debate in itself...

I thought Parling was injured. If fit I'd start him with Attwood and put Launchbury on the bench instead of Lawes.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Or how about working on units...

Sarries are steamrollering everyone...why not just pick the sarries side with the non English replaced by the best Englishman in that position...that would give us something like:

1 Mako V
2 T.Youngs
3 M.Stevens
4 Kruis
5 Borthwick
6 Billy V
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan

9 Wigglesworth
10 Farrell
11 Stettle
12 Twelvetrees
13 Tomkins
14 Ashton
15 Goode

Sarries have won their first two games, if they are still "steamrollering" by the AIs then maybe

Geordiefalcon in my opinion a team is all about having balance. Bit like life actually.

Borthwick has and never will be a good ball carrier. It's his defensive work,huge workrate and excellent lineout that make him a decent player. Put in him in a pack which balances itself out and he's very effective.

I feel most of the criticism comes for his lacklustre ball carrying and perceived lack of charisma as England captain.

He's not an eyecatching player, he's not particularly charismatic when he speaks but he's popular with players and works very hard.

lostinwales I disagree to an extent. I think his lineout ability was missing and still is. No English player matches him in that area in my opinion. I know some might think Parling does but I haven't seen that at international level consistently.

Lineout is a huge part of the set piece.

Parling is more popular because he is better with ball in hand.