England 15 for Argentina

I'd go for a few changes rather than wholesale! Gone are the days of the Argentinians being a easy game!

1. Vunipola
2. Hartkey
3. Cole
4. Lawes
5. Attwood
6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Vunipola
9. Youngs
10. Farrell
11. Yarde
12. Twelvetrees
13. Burrell
14. Wade
15. Brown

I thought Corberserro was due to be fit for Argentina. If he is then would have him instead of Vunipola. And would like to see Burrll in place of Twelvetrees.

But the rest of your team tiger, yes i agree with.

Tiger/Chief wrote:I'd go for a few changes rather than wholesale! Gone are the days of the Argentinians being a easy game!

1. Vunipola
2. Hartkey
3. Cole
4. Lawes
5. Attwood
6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Vunipola
9. Youngs
10. Farrell
11. Yarde
12. Twelvetrees
13. Burrell
14. Wade
15. Brown

That looks great to me too - also with Corbs if available.

I think changing the midfield is a terrible mistake at this stage. Keeping 12trees and tompkins together is key, sure they the were not the best against oz but they had never played together.
I for one can not wait to see 12trees re-action if he is re selected , he will defiantly feel that he has a point to prove.

Id go with  

1. Corbisero
2. Hartley
3. Cole
4. Lawes
5. Attwood
6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Vunipola
9. Youngs
10. Farrell
11. Yarde
12. Twelvetrees
13. Tompkins
14. Wade
15. Brown

36 - he has a lot of skills which could be very useful. I think its way too early to write him off because of one poor performance. Sometimes it is really worth perservering because the pay off is worth it.

lostinwales wrote:36 - he has a lot of skills which could be very useful. I think its way too early to write him off because of one poor performance. Sometimes it is really worth perservering because the pay off is worth it.

I dont think any one is writing off 36. Just trying out some one different. My choice would be Burell and Tonkins for the Argentina game.

Get rid of Ashton. He is useless.

Why would you leave Launchberry out, he was much better than Lawes on the weekend, worked his b0l0cks off. Lawes was good but not as good as people are making out, a lot of people ar blaming Young's as well but it wasn't all his fault. He is a much better player than the walking red card.

Not blaming Youngs just a case of squad rotation and Hartley isn't a bad player to bring in!

In my opinion 12trees and Tompkins don't offer enough attacking threat. Probably never will. With Farrell at 10 and Brown at 15 I think you need a attacking 13 that 12trees can bring into the game! As good as brown is. I've never seen him burst through the middle off of a set piece or joining the attacking line. He is however a phenomenal counter attacker! In short We need a 13 who can attack not just defend

Anthony Watson has been brought into the squad for experience this week. I'm glad to see Lancaster is recognising these kinds of players, many have said he looks a real talent so good for him to know he is on the radar

1.Corbs - If fit I'd start him with Mako as impact
2.Youngs
3.Wilson - Looked very strong when he came on and we need to develop depth in key positions
4.Launchberry
5.Attwood
6.Wood
7.Robshaw
8.Vunipola

9.Youngs
10.Farrell

11.Yarde
12.Twelvetrees
13.Trinder - A selection I'd have made prior to the Aus game and haven't changed my mind since
14.Wade - Already a superior player to Ashton and has so much more potential he's yet to fulfill
15.Brown

16.Hartley 17.Mako 18.Cole 19.Parling 20.Morgan 21.Care 22.Flood 23.Foden

Only really harsh call I'd say is Lawes dropping out but Parling offers the sort of lock we've functioned well with off the bench and if we want to find our best XV we need to try the different options hence Attwood to start.

Tomkins is also harsh but I just don't feel he's got the skill set for this level yet and if we were playing Yarde/Wade on the wings getting the ball to them is vital which Trinder has the skill set to do.

On a different note I'd like to see us utilise Twelvetrees big kicking game more in open play, as offering a clearing options outside of the half-backs should take some pressure of Youngs/Farrell which could go a long way to alleviating some of the aimless kicking we're still seeing.

I think Tomkins is a bit Barrett mk2. He certainly was very good in defense and its interesting seeing McGeechan's take on him (very complementary) but....

I can also see Trinder playing against Argentina and looking great because there will be space for him to attack and less defensive duties, leading for calls for him to play vs NZ where he gets ripped to shreds.

I dont know if that is fair, or what should be done - I just dont think there is a definitive answer in the absence of Manu

I'd not rush corbs back. We know what he is capable of...

Give Mako and Marler more gametime.

I'd not change.much actually maybe bring Ben Youngs in and maybe consider Attwood. That would be the only things...

Mods...please merge this with existing thread on Argentina game and changes for England

http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12321/9007619/england-v-argentina-bath-teenager-anthony-watson-called-up-by-stuart-lancaster

Good experience for the lad.

Hubert Davenport wrote:Get rid of Ashton. He is useless.

Spoken after my own heart. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Let's not forget that 36 missed tackle which he is getting so much stick for came from Ashton messing up on the halfway line.

lostinwales wrote:I think Tomkins is a bit Barrett mk2. He certainly was very good in defense and its interesting seeing McGeechan's take on him (very complementary) but....

I can also see Trinder playing against Argentina and looking great because there will be space for him to attack and less defensive duties, leading for calls for him to play vs NZ where he gets ripped to shreds.

I dont know if that is fair, or what should be done - I just dont think there is a definitive answer in the absence of Manu

I'd agree that Tomkins is very good in defense (just look at his choke tackle to win the final turnover on Saturday), my selection of Trinder is more a reflection of how I'd like to see the side play however. I want to see us offering a wider threat with backs looking to attack outwide and the likes of Youngs, Attwood, Vunipola, etc offering the carrying up the middle.

At the moment our attack tends to rely on a forward hitting it up 5m from the ruck or a centre hitting it up 15m from the ruck with little to nothing outside that. As such the defense only need to defend a very narrow channel which is bread and butter for a decent Int side.

Trinder in the centre would (hopefully) ensure that the ball reaches the wider channels as he has a very good passing game and reads the defence well. Add in Yarde and Wade on the wings and for the first time in a very long time we could actually be looking at a side that offers a threat across the whole width of the pitch!

The above gameplan would also play into B Youngs and Care's abilities as spreading the defence wider would create gaps around the fringes which they are both extremely adept at exploiting.

Since the current lineup did not perform terribly well against the Wallabies, I would suggest giving the same lineup one more crack before making any changes for the All Blacks match. 

I would give Corbs another week off, playing him off the bench at most, to rest for the All Blacks. Now that Tomkins had his shot, let's see if he improves.  If not, we will need another midfield option for the following week.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10423823/Stuart-Lancaster-warns-England-players-places-are-not-safe-for-Argentina-game-despite-win-over-Australia.html

Special mentions for Kyle & Luther from SL.

Corbs
Parling (for Lawes)
Youngs B
Maybe the 2 centres above or poss Trinder
Wade

To come in for me against Argentina. Why isn't Christian Wade mentioned by SL? It is a no brainer!

Before the game it seemed likely that a line of Dickson, Farrell, 12T, Tomkins & Brown was selected with defence in mind, and attacking rugby very much afterthought. And so it was. This is what the coaching staff wanted; it’s what the English coaching staff has always wanted. It didn’t help that our ‘playmaker’ 12T played like he’d lost both his arms in a wrestling match. It also doesn’t help for the future that our best IC by a country mile is Barritt. So no real changes then until the sick-notes return. Corbs’ knees are made of papier-mâché and he should be rested. Dickson showed he’s not test quality so he’ll be the only change (to the bench). It would be useful to see Wade in, but it won’t happen. Eventually we have to try out a new flanker combination, if only to cover injuries. I’m afraid as far as selection goes it’s a case of meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Kyle Eastmonds!

Have people forgot how well he played in the summer against Arg?

He is the spark England need, give him a chance at Twickers SL.

Burrell is a 12 no? Can't throw a 12 into the 13 channel and expect fireworks... its more difficult then you'd think and not a place to get your first cap.

It will be interesting to see what SL does for this game, there is clearly an argument that players should be allowed another game to get settled but still...

Argentina are likely to be far stronger up front and in the set piece than the Aussies, so I would have a think about our front 5. I would swap Hartley and Youngs and have Youngs as second half impact. I know it won't happen but I would like to see Wilson get a start too, he looked very dominant in the scrum when he came on, surely it can only be a good thing long term to give him the first 50 or so minutes? I would also consider giving Attwood 50 mins as I think his bulk could be useful, but maybe that's my Bath bias talking.

In the backs, to be honest an argument could be made for wholesale changes apart from Brown. That won't happen, but the centre combo clearly didn't work and I don't see the point of having 12trees unless he is offering a 2nd 5/8 option. I feel that now he started maybe its worth persevering, but I don't think he has been in good form for Glaws and I would have preferred Burrell. Personally I would ditch Ashton for Wade too, but again, now he has started maybe its worth pushing on with him.

Having said all that, I doubt SL will change much, I just hope he doesn't rush Corbs back from injury.

I'd keep Lawes. If he doesn't function with Hartley then sure, bring in Parling for NZ but he is growing into the position and if he gets this right it could be an amazing selection choice.

I'd go

Vunipola, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw, Vunipola in the pack.

I'd bring back Corbisiero for half a match to get him ready for the ABs. Parling off the bench too.

Backs less sure. This game is as much gearing up for NZ as taking on ARG... I just don't think a backline of Farrell, Twelvetrees and Tomkins will suffice vs. NZ. In Tuilagi's absence a 10, 12 & 13 of say Flood, Twelvetrees and Farrell IMO would be better suited (although it lacks a little pace at 13 with Ben Smith a real worry there).

Perhaps a Farrell, Flood and Tomkins trio would work. But its too much for Twelvetrees and Tomkins. AUS were all over them and NZ are simply another class above.

1. Vunipola - Corbs is better scrummager but Mako is good enough and offers more in loose.
2. Hartley - for line out accuracy
3. Cole - same reasoning as at loose head.
4. Lawes - I don't Lawes can be blamed for poor line out.
5. Launchberry
6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Vunipola
9. Youngs
10. Farrell
11. Yarde
12. Twelvetrees - deserves another chance
13. Tompkins
14. Wade - we have to try him some time and if defence is not best neither is Ashton's.
15. Brown

fa0019 wrote:I'd keep Lawes. If he doesn't function with Hartley then sure, bring in Parling for NZ but he is growing into the position and if he gets this right it could be an amazing selection choice.

I'd go

Vunipola, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw, Vunipola in the pack.

I'd bring back Corbisiero for half a match to get him ready for the ABs. Parling off the bench too.

Backs less sure. This game is as much gearing up for NZ as taking on ARG... I just don't think a backline of Farrell, Twelvetrees and Tomkins will suffice vs. NZ. In Tuilagi's absence a 10, 12 & 13 of say Flood, Twelvetrees and Farrell IMO would be better suited (although it lacks a little pace at 13 with Ben Smith a real worry there).

Perhaps a Farrell, Flood and Tomkins trio would work. But its too much for Twelvetrees and Tomkins. AUS were all over them and NZ are simply another class above.

FA - I would never play Farrell at OC, he just doesn't have the running ability to play there, he hasn't got an outside break and is not a powerful carrier, its either 10 or nowhere for him.

I would play him at 10, but am really unsure about the centres. I like Twelvetrees, but he didn't perform at all, and its tough to judge Tomkins as a result.

I'm in favour of giving them another shot, but with Youngs at 9 and Wade on the wing, as he deserves a go at some point

This would be my XV:

1.Vunipola
2.Hartley
3.Cole
4.Lawes
5.Launchbury
6.Wood
7.Robshaw
8.Vunipola

9.Youngs
10.Farrell
11.Yarde
12.Burrell
13.Tomkins
14.Wade
15.Brown

Got to give Burrell a go at 12. Lawes should find it easier with Hartley at hooker in the lineout hopefully.

If certain players are to be dropped then so should 36.

Dropping Mako would be unfair in my opinion.

I think Twelvetrees has been identified as the ball playing 12 and he should get a decent chance at the spot. Slightly differnet to Ashton who hasn't been on fire for England for a while and relies on clean breaks etc so Wade may be a better bet as a winger who can creat a chance from nothing to a greater extent than I've Ashton.

No7 &1/2 if he's a ball playing 12 why doesn't he show this? There's a lot of hype that floats around about how great he is but we haven't seen it yet.

I don't see why he should get any more chances than other players.

I have to say I agree beshocked, I hear a lot about him and I want him to come good and be the all court 12 that England could do with. But I haven't seen him do it for Gloucester and his only contributions on Saturday were to let a smaller man past for a try and to then give away a silly penalty.

I guess being dropped after 1 game would be harsh, but he really didn't look up to speed at all. If he plays then he needs to be helping to take pressure off Farrell with his supposedly big boot and offering another 1st receiver option. If he doesn't, we may as well throw a more solid crash ball type player in there, at least they would do their job.

Well at least Brown has put the full back decision to bed for now.

I wasnt convinced before but now I am.

Pretty strong agreement on Wade over Ashton, and Youngs over Dickson (same as last time he was tried)

A bit of a conundrum for Lancaster - would probably like to make a few changes just for squad rotation and experience, but with most units of the team playing new starting combinations (bar possibly the front row - presumably they started together in the 6Ns), and with the ABs up the following week, I think Lancaster will keep changes to a minimum.

I'd be tempted to do the following:
Corbs to the bench, to get a run out in the last 20 to prove fitness
Possibly the starting and replacement TH and hooker around, so Hartley and Wilson to start, Youngs and Cole to the bench (Cole to come back in for the ABs).

2nd and back row to stay the same.

Ben Youngs in for Dickson. Probably Care to the bench

Wade or possibly Foden in for Ashton, Eastmond to the bench to cover all outside back positions.

Give the midfield combination another chance, but with the knowledge that Eastmond can come off the bench and change the style if necessary.

Exactly Bathman in London. I would give Burrell a go at 12.

My point is if people are happy to drop T.Youngs,Ashton and Dickson and even Mako then 36 should be dropped too.

Bathman_in_London wrote:I have to say I agree beshocked, I hear a lot about him and I want him to come good and be the all court 12 that England could do with. But I haven't seen him do it for Gloucester and his only contributions on Saturday were to let a smaller man past for a try and to then give away a silly penalty.

I guess being dropped after 1 game would be harsh, but he really didn't look up to speed at all. If he plays then he needs to be helping to take pressure off Farrell with his supposedly big boot and offering another 1st receiver option. If he doesn't, we may as well throw a more solid crash ball type player in there, at least they would do their job.

Its a combination thing. From what I have read he isnt on form- but then I dont think the backline he was in on Saturday helps him much. Scotland is a long time ago but he did look good that day

beshocked wrote:No7 &1/2 if he's a ball playing 12 why doesn't he show this? There's a lot of hype that floats around about how great he is but we haven't seen it yet.

I don't see why he should get any more chances than other players.

He had a chance against the Scots and played well and was dropped. Then against Argies 2nd string and was good and then a terrible game on Saturday. Personally i don't think that those games demonstrate enough to drop him. I think Lancaster has given all new players a bit of a run to prove themselves.

beshocked wrote:Exactly Bathman in London. I would give Burrell a go at 12.

My point is if people are happy to drop T.Youngs,Ashton and Dickson and even Mako then 36 should be dropped too.

I can see arguments in bringing Hartley and Wade in as the lineout struggled to start and then improved greatly once Hartely came on; and the way we're playing with Ahston is doing neither the team or the player any favours. Maybe Wade who is more likely to create from nothing is better. I think Dickson should be given a chance personally and Mako should only be dropped if Corbs is 100% fit.

beshocked wrote:Exactly Bathman in London. I would give Burrell a go at 12.

My point is if people are happy to drop T.Youngs,Ashton and Dickson and even Mako then 36 should be dropped too.

I suppose the differences are that Youngs, Dickson and Mako would just be put on the bench and then play the last 20mins rather than the first 60 or so.

Whereas I would guess that 36 would just be dropped entirely as Flood is a better bench option. As 12 is a position where England need to have more or more accurately some strength in depth I can see why SL might want to give him another chance but to be honest I've heard players be booed at Twickenham for better performances.

Beshocked id go with your XV. A few tweaks but no major overhaul. Maybe give 36 another chance to make amends for his Australia game.

I agree with Mako (or marler) starting...just dont see the point in rushing Corbs back.

no 7 &1/2 36 wasn't dropped, he started vs Ireland in the 6 nations but was basically invisible.

Yes he played well vs Scotland but so did Ashton for example.

2nd string Argies doesn't exactly tell us much.

Dropping Mako who played well but retaining players who played badly sends out the wrong message.

Geordiefalcon I don't think that centre partnership is the answer - England IMO should either retain Tomkins, drop 36 bring in Burrell or drop Tomkins, and give someone else a chance at 13.

The biggest question - is 36 good enough to be long term solution at 12? Haven't seen it so far. By the way most of the team looked good vd Scotland.

Let's not rush Corbs back

ChequeredJersey wrote:Let's not rush Corbs back

Agree with that. Got to wrap him in cotton wool.

As faa019 said he should get the last 30-40 mins vs Argentina in preparation for the NZ game.

And if England want to send Marler back our way, we could really do with him...

ChequeredJersey wrote:And if England want to send Marler back our way, we could really do with him...

You seemed to do alright at the weekend without him!

I think he deserves a run myself and is probably the best all round 12 we have. I'd agree that the Arg tour wasn't definitive which is again the reason I'd play him for the next 2 games. Chopping and changing the centres will probably lead to more mediocre performances as partnerships are ever moving.

I doubt Corbs will be 100% but I do think he's a big step up from Vunipola, which isn't to say Mako isn't good.

Bathman_in_London wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:And if England want to send Marler back our way, we could really do with him...

You seemed to do alright at the weekend without him!

Well, our scrum got slaughtered, we just managed to make up for it elsewhere in the match!

I've revised my selection.... Might as well play Mako Vunipola at 10 and Billy at 12! That's where they played on Saturday haha

In the lead up to the Cook Cup match I was overly pessimistic about England. I was wrong. I apologise to anyone who I annoyed.

Not that pessimistic. Who would have guessed Aus would be so pants?

no 7 1&2 can't say I am convinced personally by 36 yet.

Plus I think you are doing Mako a disservice. Corbisiero is better sure but I don't think he deserves to stroll back into the side, plus obviously Corbisiero is injury prone.

Triangulation thanks for the apology. It's fair enough to be a bit pessimistic though. England are still a bit stodgy. Fluency is something that England struggle with.

It's difficult to gauge where the real problem lies - is it the centre partnership? the gameplan? the coaching? the scrum half? the fly half? the lack of momentum/pace being generated by the forwards?

I'm not convinced either just need a bit more time.