England Squad for NZ Tour and 6N

by Poorfour Mon 18 Nov - 9:33

First topic message reminder :

And I've posed it in that order for a reason. England have already said that their objective is to win the 6N (with France away first up, that's a pretty big ask...) but thy also have a 3 game tour to NZ coming up in which the first game will be played without the AP finalists.

So the challenge is - how do you put together the 6N squad so that whoever makes the final, you have enough players who've played together by the end of the 6N that England can field a half-decent side with players from the top two sides missing? I suppose the good news is that for once the EPS is a nice mix of players from various teams, but a Saints-Sarries final would be a serious hindrance.

The EPS on 1 Aug looked like this. Who would be your squad? And how would you prepare them?

England senior EPS:

Forwards: David Attwood (Bath Rugby), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers), Alex Corbisiero (Northampton Saints), Tom Croft (Leicester Tigers), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), Matt Kvesic (Gloucester Rugby), Joe Launchbury (London Wasps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints), Joe Marler (Harlequins), Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby), Geoff Parling (Leicester Tigers), Chris Robshaw (Harlequins), Billy Vunipola (Saracens), Mako Vunipola (Saracens), David Wilson (Bath Rugby), Tom Wood (Northampton Saints), Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Backs: Chris Ashton (Saracens), Brad Barritt (Saracens), Mike Brown (Harlequins), Freddie Burns (Gloucester Rugby), Danny Care (Harlequins), Lee Dickson (Northampton Saints), Owen Farrell (Saracens), Toby Flood (Leicester Tigers), Ben Foden (Northampton Saints), Alex Goode (Saracens), Kyle Eastmond (Bath Rugby), Manusamoa Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers), Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester Rugby), Christian Wade (London Wasps), Marland Yarde (London Irish), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

England Saxons:

Forwards: Calum Clark (Northampton Saints), Jordan Crane (Leicester Tigers), Paul Doran Jones (Harlequins), Will Fraser (Saracens), James Haskell (London Wasps), Tom Johnson (Exeter Chiefs), Graham Kitchener (Leicester Tigers), George Kruis (Saracens), Kearnan Myall (London Wasps), David Paice (London Irish), George Robson (Harlequins), Ed Slater (Leicester Tigers), Henry Thomas (Sale Sharks), Thomas Waldrom (Leicester Tigers), Luke Wallace (Harlequins), Rob Webber (Bath Rugby), Nick Wood (Gloucester Rugby)

Backs: Anthony Allen (Leicester Tigers), Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints), Elliot Daly (London Wasps), George Ford (Bath Rugby), Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby), Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby), Ugo Monye (Harlequins), Stephen Myler (Northampton Saints), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs), Charlie Sharples (Gloucester Rugby), Joe Simpson (London Wasps), David Strettle (Saracens), Mathew Tait (Leicester Tigers), Joel Tomkins (Saracens), Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens)

by kingelderfield Sun 29 Dec - 10:53

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Crusaders game between 2nd and 3rd tests.

4th test 21st June.......another scheduling masterclass on the back of a Lions tour, the year before a world cup....I would say none of the Tigers Lions (if you understand me) have been the same this year, Cole and Ben Youngs both look jaded, whilist Croft, Tuilagi and Parling all have long term injuries. Add to that Corbs is toast and people actually question that they play to much rugby.....

by Hood83 Sun 29 Dec - 12:09

beshocked wrote:No 7 &1/2 or perhaps Lancaster might have watched Gloucester - May might suffer because of this.

Trinder? Really another player part of the famed under performing Gloucester back division?

Sounds like I am really bashing Gloucester but I continually baffled that so many people want to fill the England backline with so many players from a team performing so badly.

Geordiefalcon that's the problem though. None of the other 13 candidates are anywhere near as good as Manu at the moment. There's no obvious replacement because of this.

If Nowell was tearing up the AP and HC with tries galore a risk might be warranted but he's not. In terms of tries and appearances, Ashton is emphatically outperforming him.

None of the names mentioned in my opinion have stood out from our current options.

I am pessimistic because there seems to be a lack of decent contenders to challenge the likes of Ashton and Farrell. Both who have had decent seasons in my opinion.

Of course I am biased but when you think they are part of the side currently top of the league and top try scorers some of the credit must go to them.

I think the calls for Trinder are partly based on the painfully obvious observation that Tomkins was not and never will be international quality. A fact I'm amazed more people didn't accept before he was capped. Playing in a successful team should guarantee you're looked at closely, the opposite for poorly performing teams, that seems fair. But from what I've seen of Trinder this season, when fit, he is vastly better than that clodhopper Tomkins in almost every area.

by GloriousEmpire Sun 29 Dec - 12:41

You are assuming MT will be any good when returning from injury. Look at a guy like the more talented Isaia Toeava to see the way a guys ability can be decimated by such surgery.

by yappysnap Sun 29 Dec - 13:01

That's true about coming back from injury GE.

And a lot of people are forgetting just how poorly England utilised a fully fit Manu in the 6N's anyway.

Trinder may be better with the ball then Tomkins, but it seems at the moment all the coaches require from their 13 is defensive work and rucking skills.

by Hood83 Sun 29 Dec - 14:40

yappysnap wrote:That's true about coming back from injury GE.

And a lot of people are forgetting just how poorly England utilised a fully fit Manu in the 6N's anyway.

Trinder may be better with the ball then Tomkins, but it seems at the moment all the coaches require from their 13 is defensive work and rucking skills.

Not only that but it's not like Manu was the finished article. Can't kick, fairly average pass and his decision making is pretty mediocre. Against big 13's who can largely negate his power, he needs to develop a bit more guile

by kingelderfield Sun 29 Dec - 16:16

Hood83 wrote:
yappysnap wrote:That's true about coming back from injury GE.

And a lot of people are forgetting just how poorly England utilised a fully fit Manu in the 6N's anyway.

Trinder may be better with the ball then Tomkins, but it seems at the moment all the coaches require from their 13 is defensive work and rucking skills.

Not only that but it's not like Manu was the finished article. Can't kick, fairly average pass and his decision making is pretty mediocre. Against big 13's who can largely negate his power, he needs to develop a bit more guile

Utter twaddle....MT is the jewel in the crown chap......instinctive decision making of the highest order.......rewatch Barrett's attempted butching of the try against the AB's, it was MT who made/saved it.....the guy is world class and to speculate about his demise due to injury is damned unsporting. I ought to punch you on the nose!

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun 29 Dec - 16:27

GloriousEmpire wrote:You are assuming MT will be any good when returning from injury. Look at a guy like the more talented Isaia Toeava to see the way a guys ability can be decimated by such surgery.

The difference is MT has the NHS (crown jewel of the empire) to sort him out whereas your chap had to rely in mumbojumbo and witch doctors.

by Hood83 Sun 29 Dec - 16:35

kingelderfield wrote:
Hood83 wrote:
yappysnap wrote:That's true about coming back from injury GE.

And a lot of people are forgetting just how poorly England utilised a fully fit Manu in the 6N's anyway.

Trinder may be better with the ball then Tomkins, but it seems at the moment all the coaches require from their 13 is defensive work and rucking skills.

Not only that but it's not like Manu was the finished article. Can't kick, fairly average pass and his decision making is pretty mediocre. Against big 13's who can largely negate his power, he needs to develop a bit more guile

Utter twaddle....MT is the jewel in the crown chap......instinctive decision making of the highest order.......rewatch Barrett's attempted butching of the try against the AB's, it was MT who made/saved it.....the guy is world class and to speculate about his demise due to injury is damned unsporting. I ought to punch you on the nose!

...eh? No, I wasn't speculating about how he would be on his return, think that was GE or someone else. I'm also not saying he's not the jewel in the crown of our backline, it's just it's a very small crown with very few jewels. He is good, exceptional at some things, not great at others. If he's going to be truly world class though surely he needs to develop those aspects of his game that aren't yet top notch.

by kingelderfield Sun 29 Dec - 21:45

They guy is already world class end of.

Yes ofcourse he can improve aspects of his game.

Hope and prey he gets back and reaches his pre-lions form.

by king_carlos Mon 30 Dec - 1:00

Using the usual criteria of top 3 in the world in the position you'd have to say he's right up there given the shortage of centres around at the moment.

Conrad Smith is well out in front, but after the Snake you've got a close group of the likes of Davies, Manu, O'Driscoll and Kuridrani competing. That's done considering Jean De Villiers as a 12 though. You could also argue a couple more Kiwis such as Ben Smith and Rene Ranger are up there with those players in terms of ability as well.

Back to Manu though, as a Tigers fan I completely agree parts of his game need to improve. I think he's a player who we have seen make steady improvements to his game however with his passing improving markedly as has his maturity in defence, he rushes out of the line far less now. No doubt he still has improvements to make but I think the evidence for his game improving could be seen prior to injury. I think that is the case with several young players in the side however:

Marler - Has looked far more composed this year. His carrying game faded a bit whilst he worked on his scrummaging but since finding consistency there his all round game is really coming to the fore.

M Vunipola - Took on a huge learning curve last year with his scrummaging whilst still not great coming on leaps and bounds. Just returned from injury so hopefully can make a big impressing in the 6N

Lawes - Added massively to his all round game with his line-out work and carrying much improved.

B Vunipola - His basics such as control at the base of the scrum are improving rapidly. His greater fitness in recent times also shining through in his work rate.

Farrell - For all people say about his poor attacking game I think we've seen big improvements. Especially for the Lions and Saracens when he stands flatter. I'd be really interested to see how he'd do in the 6N if given a license to stand flatter and a decent backline outside him, reckon he could really surprise a few people with just how far his game has come on.

Tom Youngs is another to have been on a huge learning curve and already looks a top player with plenty of room still for improvement.

by sad_gimp Mon 30 Dec - 5:06

I'd have Dave Ward over TY on recent form. Better carrier and excellent throwing.

Buchanan and Gray also good but something about the way Ward plays makes him look like international material. Cool as a cucumber. Carrying technique and running lines are a joy to watch.

by Poorfour Mon 30 Dec - 8:28

Please don't big up Ward just yet. Quins don't have any more fit hookers and can't afford to lose him

by BigTrevsbigmac Mon 30 Dec - 8:35

King Carlos -

I believe you have left out the best youngster of the lot

Joe Launchbury who maybe hasn't improved as much as some but that is because his performances have been consistently of the highest order. His work rate & tackle count for a lock are unsurpassed.
His only slight blip was the Wales game when he was recovering from a shoulder injury & didn't look at his best. However, he has put in several eye catching performances & can truly become world class.

by Cumbrian Mon 30 Dec - 8:44

I agree about Launchbury, he's got the potential to be playing for England for years. He's good now, but I'm looking forward to seeing him in 2-3 seasons time when he has had time to harden up and gained 20-30 more caps.

by yappysnap Mon 30 Dec - 8:59

Launchberry is very good but of all of those mentioned I'd have him as the most likely to lose his place.

He is a brilliant all round athlete and always gives 100% but while all the others have extra facets to their games that you don't find in many if any of their competitors for Int spots Launchberry doesn't have anything extra like that.

So while he is quality I could see him being left out for particular specialists when the need arises, such as Attwood or Slater if we need bulk in the engine room.

by BigTrevsbigmac Mon 30 Dec - 9:24

yappysnap wrote:Launchberry is very good but of all of those mentioned I'd have him as the most likely to lose his place.

He is a brilliant all round athlete and always gives 100% but while all the others have extra facets to their games that you don't find in many if any of their competitors for Int spots Launchberry doesn't have anything extra like that.

So while he is quality I could see him being left out for particular specialists when the need arises, such as Attwood or Slater if we need bulk in the engine room.

Have to agree to disagree there Yappy, but from the list I would say Tom Young would be the most vulnerable and personally i would have Hartley starting over him and Tom to come on for impact. I would start with the more consistent thrower and a bit of extra bulk at scrum time.

by king_carlos Mon 30 Dec - 13:01

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:
yappysnap wrote:Launchberry is very good but of all of those mentioned I'd have him as the most likely to lose his place.

He is a brilliant all round athlete and always gives 100% but while all the others have extra facets to their games that you don't find in many if any of their competitors for Int spots Launchberry doesn't have anything extra like that.

So while he is quality I could see him being left out for particular specialists when the need arises, such as Attwood or Slater if we need bulk in the engine room.

Have to agree to disagree there Yappy, but from the list I would say Tom Young would be the most vulnerable and personally i would have Hartley starting over him and Tom to come on for impact. I would start with the more consistent thrower and a bit of extra bulk at scrum time.

Trev - I agree with your earlier post about Launchbury but as you said in it missed him out as he's a player who has looked strong since coming in so the improvements haven't been as drastic. Similar reason to why I omitted Brown as most people were aware that his performances would improve even more when given the 15 shirt.

Yappy - Whilst I can see where you're coming from, in that he doesn't offer quite the bulk of Attwood/Slater or the head on tackles of Lawes, he does offer excellent support play in attack which very few of our forwards do. In the AI's he was the main forward always offering himself on the shoulder of an attacker. Often in fact he was the only one doing so other than a bit of work from Robshaw who is also strong in that area.

Incidentally that is one of the few things our pack is really lacking (i.e. support play in the loose) along with a lack of someone with real pace to offer an extra threat outwide. Whilst he may not be a popular player with some it's why I'd love to see Tom Croft back at 6. He's offers pace and support play that no other option does IMO to go with a very strong work rate, great cover defence and another excellent line-out option.

He may not offer the same work in the tight as Wood or Robshaw (though he's still pretty good there!) but he would offer something we're missing at the moment and complement players like Cole, Robshaw and Launchbury extremely well.

by Chjw131 Mon 30 Dec - 14:17

yappysnap wrote:Launchberry is very good but of all of those mentioned I'd have him as the most likely to lose his place.

He is a brilliant all round athlete and always gives 100% but while all the others have extra facets to their games that you don't find in many if any of their competitors for Int spots Launchberry doesn't have anything extra like that.

So while he is quality I could see him being left out for particular specialists when the need arises, such as Attwood or Slater if we need bulk in the engine room.

Have to disagree there Yappy. I think Launchbury is nailed on, he epitomises everything Lancaster wants from a forward; huge work-rate very low error count and reads the game very well. If the player stats are to be believed he's actually heavier than Slater and a similar weight to Attwood pushing 19 stone now. Given he's only 22 and has another few years of filling out to go i'd say he'll be one of England's heaviest second row options for a year or two. At least until the likes of Stooke come through.

Whilst weight doesn't always translate to good carrying it's a good start. I'm not usually one for going OTT about young players but Joe Launchbury will revolutionise modern day international lock play over the next few years. The ground he covers and his execution of skills are really something, combined with his awareness of the game he has massive potential to be a world star.

by Chjw131 Mon 30 Dec - 14:20

mid_gen wrote:I'd have Dave Ward over TY on recent form. Better carrier and excellent throwing.

Buchanan and Gray also good but something about the way Ward plays makes him look like international material. Cool as a cucumber. Carrying technique and running lines are a joy to watch.

Interesting you say that because when he was with Pirates Ward's throwing was a really weak part of his game. Massive credit has to go to him and Harlequins for bringing that on to the level it is now over the past season and a half. That's perhaps why we haven't seen more of Ward until now? He had been putting in these sorts of performances regularly for Pirates and being a converted open-side he's pretty awesome at targeting the ball in defence.

I know he's no spring-chicken but he's put in three MOTM performances both in the Heineken Cup and AP this season. He'll be a hard man to shift from that Quins 2 shirt!

by Chjw131 Mon 30 Dec - 14:29

As regards the back-line selection I think we all know we'll see 11. M Brown 14. C Ashton 15. A Goode 23. D Strettle.

If that's the case I really worry for our chances for RWC. This is the last chance to form a cohesive back-line and settle some proper attacking strategies. I know injuries have taken their toll but that will be the case at any time and the team needs a strong philosophy and players to suit.

If we're going to continue on Gen. Farrell's route then our best bet is to play the three FB strategy with a midfield of Barritt and Tomkins.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 30 Dec - 15:05

Chjw131 wrote:
If we're going to continue on Gen. Farrell's route then our best bet is to play the three FB strategy with a midfield of Barritt and Tomkins.

Cant we get Hape ands Noon back?

by yappysnap Mon 30 Dec - 16:16

On a side note going back to the Youngs lineout chat. He missed 9 throws over the AI's, remarkably 3 a game so he's pretty consistent with it, but that is terrible for an Int hooker. Especially when he only started one game.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 30 Dec - 16:20

Is that 9 missed throws or 9 lineouts lost?
Huge difference.

by jamesandimac Mon 30 Dec - 17:50

king_carlos wrote:
BigTrevsbigmac wrote:
yappysnap wrote:Launchberry is very good but of all of those mentioned I'd have him as the most likely to lose his place.

He is a brilliant all round athlete and always gives 100% but while all the others have extra facets to their games that you don't find in many if any of their competitors for Int spots Launchberry doesn't have anything extra like that.

So while he is quality I could see him being left out for particular specialists when the need arises, such as Attwood or Slater if we need bulk in the engine room.

Have to agree to disagree there Yappy, but from the list I would say Tom Young would be the most vulnerable and personally i would have Hartley starting over him and Tom to come on for impact. I would start with the more consistent thrower and a bit of extra bulk at scrum time.

Trev - I agree with your earlier post about Launchbury but as you said in it missed him out as he's a player who has looked strong since coming in so the improvements haven't been as drastic. Similar reason to why I omitted Brown as most people were aware that his performances would improve even more when given the 15 shirt.

Yappy - Whilst I can see where you're coming from, in that he doesn't offer quite the bulk of Attwood/Slater or the head on tackles of Lawes, he does offer excellent support play in attack which very few of our forwards do. In the AI's he was the main forward always offering himself on the shoulder of an attacker. Often in fact he was the only one doing so other than a bit of work from Robshaw who is also strong in that area.

Incidentally that is one of the few things our pack is really lacking (i.e. support play in the loose) along with a lack of someone with real pace to offer an extra threat outwide. Whilst he may not be a popular player with some it's why I'd love to see Tom Croft back at 6. He's offers pace and support play that no other option does IMO to go with a very strong work rate, great cover defence and another excellent line-out option.

He may not offer the same work in the tight as Wood or Robshaw (though he's still pretty good there!) but he would offer something we're missing at the moment and complement players like Cole, Robshaw and Launchbury extremely well.

Must say I have to disagree with the Croft assessment. I think the pack really performs better without him and we're really developing a hard edge up front whereby we can take anyone on, if not beat them there, certainly challenge, something I think we would lose with Croft coming in. If you were to include him it would be in place of either Wood or Robshaw, two players I would have as nailed on starters and are developing as a very good pairing. For me the I would rather see Haskell in there over Croft, mainly because what he lacks in a lineout option he offers in physicality and as he's shown in the 2012 AIs and 2013 6Ns (and from 2010 through to RWC in 2011 come to think of it) he slots straight in and offers a good work rate and physicality in the tight.

At present, with his injury problems alone, Croft shouldn't be included in the EPS until at least the 6N 2015. That gives him the full summer to prepare his body for the 2014/15 season and can spend the first half of the season concentrating on his own game without the pressures of England. Then if his form and game warrants it then consider him.

But like I said before, I don't see how Crofts style of play fits in with the style of how Englands pack have developed and I certainly don't see him as first choice over Wood or Robshaw.

by yappysnap Mon 30 Dec - 18:31

Yea to be honest if extra pace is needed then Morgan does bring that when he's on anyway.

by formerly known as Sam Mon 30 Dec - 20:17

Yappy, nominated for Tigers player of the month, motm against Montpellier and outstanding with Cole against Sale yesterday. He'll start the 6N as second choice but then he'll actually be at training rather than with his heavily pregnant wife might have chance to practice his lineout before the games and win his shirt back.

Croft won't be fully fit before next season, he seemed to be recovering well when I saw him meeting friends in the CAT stand at the weekend. If fit and in form he is a game changing option that I'd drop Wood for in a heart beat. Wood is a good player but between him and Robshaw we don't have a combination that works. We need either more power or more dynamic brilliance. I thought Kvesic might have stepped up but he's been awful and Croft is broken so we need to look at out other options. Vunipola has been playing 6 for Sarries...

by Geordie Thu 2 Jan - 9:29

Re, Launchbury is simply class. He has the lot...and could be as influential as Richard Hill was. And hes pushing 19st so certainly no lightweight. Plus at 22 he is possibly our most capped second row of the current crop...he'll not get dropped.

Sam,
I wouldnt want to see croft back in the team - squad yes as an option. He works well in the Tigers set up as they play an athletic 6...but i dont think Englands current set up is geared for that, which means he's not as effective as he is for Tigers. Wood and Robshaw actually balance quite nicely if you ask me and should allow Morgan or Vunipola to get on with the carrying duties.

by kingelderfield Thu 2 Jan - 12:02

England certainly have a serious bag of sweets to choose from in the 2nd row. I guess launchbury & Lawes have the shirts at present, however with the likes of Kitchener, Parling (when fit), and Attwood, plus a host of others including 'one for the future' MATTHEWS at Quins and its a real position of strenght. I think England should take 5 SR's to NZ in December or whenever it is the season finishes.
On the back row, injury permitting we have 2 serious N8 contenders in MV and Morgan, behind these two I would have Easter just for his rugby brain alone though ofcourse SL would rather pick widdow twanky, so who else is there? I don't buy either of Ewers or Dickenson at this level so you're looking at one of either Fearns, Haskell, or Gaskell maybe with a big lumpy 6 like Garvey.

6 should be Wood who i'd like to see captain the side (as a player I respect Robshaw but I think the armband has been a complicating factor that SL has in his usual ignorant way failed to understand/resolve. Both Wood, Hartley and others would benefit the experience of the captains responsibility) and there are others/combinations that can need to be tried/assessed before the world cup group stage. Get that SL, YOU NEED TO PLAY OTHER COMBINATIONS in NZ not just Wood every ducking game......
7 - It's not going to happen under SL but having observed the Neil Back international experience (we played 3 monster N8's in 1995 and got our backsides whipped by NZ) we have to understand the role and benefits of a genuine 7. Obviously Kvesic has had a rubbish season so far but I have been really impressed with Wallace and would get him a cap against Italy. Others are really hens teeth, maybe Seymoor or ofcourse Armitage who MUST go to NZ - again SL is a fool so this won't happen. The thing is you need to understand why you play a genuine 7 and with Farrell as a blind mans pick at 10 there really is nfp. Robshaw is obviously a 6.5 which is not criticism of him just a fact.

by Geordie Thu 2 Jan - 12:23

KingE,

I wouldnt have Gaskell anywhere near the Saxons let along the Seniors. Armitages chance has gone aswell...sadly or staggeringly as i believe Matt Garveys has aswell.
Another potantial second row of the future is definately Dom Barrow.

Its strange how both Kvesic and Burns have both had such bad seasons at Glos, after excellent ones last year.

If your looking for a 7...Andy Saull has been very impressive for us, but in all truth i dont have an issue with Robshaw in there.

IN truth though the pack doesnt need fixed....its the backs which are the major problem / concern for me.

by Cumbrian Thu 2 Jan - 12:35

I've not been following matches as closely, what is the craic with Will Fraser? Is he out injurd again? He was looking really good last season.

by kingelderfield Thu 2 Jan - 12:47

Hi GeordieFalcon, that is the issue I have about a genuine 7. Eggs is eggs and 15 man rugby will ALWAYS win over an 8 man game.

Genuine world class 7's are a dying breed, however for any team to play to the maximum of their ability then you must play 15 man all court rugby and to do this you MUST have a genuine 7.

Sadly I have long given up on the current England coaches so have no expectation that this luxury of riches, that is the current extended england playing squad, will achieve their potential.

by kingelderfield Thu 2 Jan - 12:52

Cumbrian wrote:I've not been following matches as closely, what is the craic with Will Fraser? Is he out injurd again? He was looking really good last season.

Lady luck and the spanish archer......another serious injury I believe. He was certainly showing real form/potential end of last season. All the very best to him.

by lostinwales Thu 2 Jan - 12:56

The debates over the need of an out and out 7 will go on for years. The actual need depends upon how good the rest of the team are at handling and on the floor, and on current law interpretations, and even how people define the role of the 7.

Personally I see traditional 7's as a luxury item. On their day they can be hugely significant, but often they can just be peripheral. Smart teams will find ways of taking them out of the game

by Geordie Thu 2 Jan - 12:58

Have to say i disagree that Robshaw is not good enough. He is an integral part of Quins play and they are certainly dont play an eight man game.

Im beginning to think it is the coaching that is an issue...and I confess im slowly beginning to wonder where this group of coaches are taking us.

Players like Owen Farrell, criticsied for his England style seems a more fluid better player when at Sarries. This suggests to me that he is being forced to play to a certain style...and i just question why?
Likewise Chris Ashton is derided by England and other fans...yet is a regular scorer for Sarries...one of the top scorers this season.

This suggests to me there is a problem with the tactics etc ...

by No 7&1/2 Thu 2 Jan - 13:57

The back row of Wood, Robshaw and Morgan/Vunipola offer everything you would want. I can't remember seeing them outplayed; they compliment each other so well. What we do need to do is blood some other players though as we do need the depth here.

by ChequeredJersey Thu 2 Jan - 14:04

"Between Wood and Robshaw we don't have a combo that works"

Is this a serious comment? How about the combo that has worked in every game they have played- 6 Wood, Robshaw 8?!

by little_badger Thu 2 Jan - 14:08

Wallace to come through and cover 7?
6 - Any youngsters stand out (Garvey I know about)?

Watson to cover the back three from the bench, eventually used more at fullback with Nowell also covering the back three. Sorted.

Fly half - Come 9 Jan, it really has to include Ford I think now, Burns isn't even his clubs first choice 10.

by ChequeredJersey Thu 2 Jan - 14:08

And more Love sacks about a genuine 7, which has several errors:

A) that there is such a thing at all
B) that it is necessary at all
C) specifically to play an "all court game". See the ABs and Quins, neither of whom have what is perceived as a specialist 7 anymore.
D) that we don't have anyone who fulfils the characteristics envisaged in this imaginary position
E) that Robshaw hasn't already done this and more at International level

Does anyone think we were beaten at the breakdown at all this AI?

by Geordie Thu 2 Jan - 14:14

No 7&1/2 wrote:The back row of Wood, Robshaw and Morgan/Vunipola offer everything you would want. I can't remember seeing them outplayed; they compliment each other so well. What we do need to do is blood some other players though as we do need the depth here.

Agree, our depth needs looked at..JOhnson etc are quality prem players but im not convinced they are worthy internationals. Haskell should be looked at again. Garvey must be looked at. Fearns, Fraser, Saull, Wilson, Wallace etc etc any playing good rugby consistantly regardless of who they're playing for.

by little_badger Thu 2 Jan - 14:21

GF - I agree that some players are good in the AP but haven't stepped up. Johnson is one such, in the backs Goode is another.

For loose forwards it seems to be an awful lot easier to be noticed if your front five is performing well, which is why I think Kvesic may drop to the saxons.

Yes it's important to have depth in the pack, but the priority has to be the backline. The England pack, I believe, is there or there abouts. The backs on the other hand.........no. I want SL to spend sometime sorting that out!

by Geordie Thu 2 Jan - 14:27

What to do with a problem like Englands backline...

by kingelderfield Thu 2 Jan - 15:11

ChequeredJersey wrote:And more Love sacks about a genuine 7, which has several errors:

A) that there is such a thing at all - open your lazy eyes chap, because Yes the best side this country ever produced played a genuine 7 in Neil Back - The best NZ sides have always played a genuine 7, ditto OZ

B) that it is necessary at all - Yes it is blindingly necessary, if you're going to fully exploit the potential of your team to win

C) specifically to play an "all court game". See the ABs and Quins, neither of whom have what is perceived as a specialist 7 anymore. - Really then tell me what Luke Wallace has been dicking about at Love sacks?

D) that we don't have anyone who fulfils the characteristics envisaged in this imaginary position - a quality genuine 7 is a rare thing hence why they're not often available to be played, however any team that has the benefit of possessing a 7 will try to take the advantage

E) that Robshaw hasn't already done this and more at International level - Robshaw is a 6.5 at best, Wallace is a 7, they have numbers on the back of their shirts which will help you as you're obviously unable to appreciate the differences and requirements between the two positions.

Does anyone think we were beaten at the breakdown at all this AI?

- the defensive breakdown is ok however many other areas of SL's game plan negate any attacking options and thus we do not even know what we're missing as we don't even have an attack to link up with or feed from.

by ChequeredJersey Thu 2 Jan - 15:27

kingelderfield wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:And more Love sacks about a genuine 7, which has several errors:

A) that there is such a thing at all - open your lazy eyes chap, because Yes the best side this country ever produced played a genuine 7 in Neil Back - The best NZ sides have always played a genuine 7, ditto OZ

B) that it is necessary at all - Yes it is blindingly necessary, if you're going to fully exploit the potential of your team to win

C) specifically to play an "all court game". See the ABs and Quins, neither of whom have what is perceived as a specialist 7 anymore. - Really then tell me what Luke Wallace has been dicking about at Love sacks?

D) that we don't have anyone who fulfils the characteristics envisaged in this imaginary position - a quality genuine 7 is a rare thing hence why they're not often available to be played, however any team that has the benefit of possessing a 7 will try to take the advantage

E) that Robshaw hasn't already done this and more at International level - Robshaw is a 6.5 at best, Wallace is a 7, they have numbers on the back of their shirts which will help you as you're obviously unable to appreciate the differences and requirements between the two positions.

Does anyone think we were beaten at the breakdown at all this AI?

A- so this current NZ team, in which the main breakdown operator is Read, isn't one of their best then? Admittedly Back, alongside 2 other players who started as 7s in Hill and Dayglo, was immense but a solitary example means little. That was an excellently balanced back row, which is the actual point of importance, and that team is famously criticised for playing 10 man rugby. It was also in 2003, and in case you hadn't noticed Rugby has changed, notably the approach to the breakdown. Anyway, this point was that I dispute the existence of a genuine 7. McCaw has been excellent at the breakdown, as was Jones before him, but both are adept at playing 6 or 7, and McCaw's strengths have changed depending on what the ABs needed him to be at any given time. Neil Back was an excellent player who was strong at the breakdown but he did not specialise there. Poccock's carrying is overlooked due to people fixating on the breakdown. Ditto Louw. The only thing linking these players some call genuine 7s is their work rate, strength on the floor and ability to link plays when needed. These are not exclusive abilities, and the obsession with the breakdown is so utterly wrong. It is vital to have good players at the breakdown but not just at 7. It is physically impossible for 1 or 2 men to make every ruck so putting your breakdown prowess on the shoulders of one position is naive at best. Same with turnovers, which are frequently made by backs.

If 7 is seen as a truly separate position, the only real difference between it and 6 is who tackles whom at a scrum but with no back row plays and the scrum as a true back move platform a thing of the past I'd argue it matters far less than it did, and SA had the roles reversed in this area and French rugby ignored it for a L-R system.

by ChequeredJersey Thu 2 Jan - 15:28

B- you have just repeated your opinion here with no evidence or logical argument

by kingelderfield Thu 2 Jan - 15:31

GeordieFalcon wrote:What to do with a problem like Englands backline...

SL hasn't got a clue so don't expect any change soon.

The most experienced and best FH in england also realised this and has therefore taken his ball elsewhere. Real shame Flood didn't stay at Tigers because he's played his best rugby in their colours - still all things considered you have to take care of number 1.

What will it take to get rid of the 'loser' (Loser some one who has not achieved or won anything ever) SL?

3rd place in the 6N's?

by ChequeredJersey Thu 2 Jan - 15:32

C- Wallace is a new addition and actually his starting coincided with a drop in form at first. We still played an all court game with Robshaw at 7. In fact, we always look better with Robshaw playing. Our "7s" are in fact any of Ward, Robshaw, Wallace, Mo, Trayfoot, Easter, Lowe and Brown depending on who is playing. Leinster play an "all court game". They have a utility backrower at 7. Australia have Hooper who is fast and carries well but actually looking at his influence on breakdowns it is minimal.

by ChequeredJersey Thu 2 Jan - 15:34

D- my point was that if we imagined that your genuine 7 was a real and vital concept, we already have several. Robshaw to start, then Armitage (whose carrying is in my eyes more useful to Toulon than his groundwork), Wallace and Fraser at the very least.

by ChequeredJersey Thu 2 Jan - 15:44

E- this is pure and utter Love sacks. Robshaw lacks speed, certainly. Other than that he can (and says that he does, kind of like Mccaw) change his role depending on the situation but he has been excellent at the breakdown in the premiership, HEC, and International rugby, and was there against Aus, Argentina and NZ. The only time I have seen him crushed at the breakdown was against Wales where our entire pack was mullered, he played well but Tipuric and Warburton together had too much of an advantage, and Aus in 2012 which was admittedly a poor performance against Hooper who was on that occasion too fast but strangely couldn't repeat his performance next year.

He also plays the linkman and 1st receiver for Quins and does anything you could want from a 7. 6.5 just means a flanker who can play 6 and 7, I.e a versatile flanker, and most flankers are frankly 6.5s. This doesn't mean they are any worse at 7 or 6, just equally adept at both. If they are excellent at both, like someone who won AP player of the year in both positions, then they would be a "6.5". Or as I like to call it "flanker".

I have and still play rugby at flanker. Either 6 or 7 though I am not quick or that tall so play 6. I have played about 80% of all my rugby at flanker, and I think cheap ad hominems implying I don't know what it is like to play there are both insulting, stupid and indicate that you feel your own argument is weak. The key thing in any back row is that it is well balanced, with every facet of play covered and used to playing together. Much like our current one.

by kingelderfield Thu 2 Jan - 15:56

ChequeredJersey wrote:
kingelderfield wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:And more Love sacks about a genuine 7, which has several errors:

A) that there is such a thing at all - open your lazy eyes chap, because Yes the best side this country ever produced played a genuine 7 in Neil Back - The best NZ sides have always played a genuine 7, ditto OZ

B) that it is necessary at all - Yes it is blindingly necessary, if you're going to fully exploit the potential of your team to win

C) specifically to play an "all court game". See the ABs and Quins, neither of whom have what is perceived as a specialist 7 anymore. - Really then tell me what Luke Wallace has been dicking about at Love sacks?

D) that we don't have anyone who fulfils the characteristics envisaged in this imaginary position - a quality genuine 7 is a rare thing hence why they're not often available to be played, however any team that has the benefit of possessing a 7 will try to take the advantage

E) that Robshaw hasn't already done this and more at International level - Robshaw is a 6.5 at best, Wallace is a 7, they have numbers on the back of their shirts which will help you as you're obviously unable to appreciate the differences and requirements between the two positions.

Does anyone think we were beaten at the breakdown at all this AI?

A- so this current NZ team, in which the main breakdown operator is Read, isn't one of their best then? Actually it is my opinion that 'this NZ side has now peaked and wether they are able to maintain their performance is in question. Read is and always will be secondary to Mccaw who at his best was the best 7 in world rugby - Admittedly Back, alongside 2 other players who started as 7s in Hill and Dayglo, was immense but a solitary example means little - 'solitary example' indeed and makes the point all the more so - That was an excellently balanced back row, which is the actual point of importance - Yes a balanced back row, a 6 7 & 8, each are specialised positions and wehn each is peformed correctly provide balance, not 2 or 3 6's - and that team is famously criticised for playing 10 man rugby - nonsense spring 2003 Ireland & Oz games so don't make it up ok - It was also in 2003, and in case you hadn't noticed Rugby has changed, notably the approach to the breakdown - yes it has changed and the need to play in space and avoid contact or very very quick ball is now more important than ever - Anyway, this point was that I dispute the existence of a genuine 7 - you're to far gone sonny boy come down from there at once! McCaw has been excellent at the breakdown, as was Jones before him, but both are adept at playing 6 or 7, and McCaw's strengths have changed depending on what the ABs needed him to be at any given time. Neil Back was an excellent player who was strong at the breakdown but he did not specialise there - Yes he did again don't make it up! - people fixating on the breakdown. Ditto Louw. The only thing linking these players some call genuine 7s is their work rate, strength on the floor and ability to link plays when needed - Da thats what a 7 does - t exclusive abilities, and the obsession with the breakdown is so utterly wrong. It is vital to have good players at the breakdown but not just at 7 - all players should have skills, 7 is the specialist - It is physically impossible for 1 or 2 men to make every ruck so putting your breakdown prowess on the shoulders of one position is naive at best. Same with turnovers, which are frequently made by backs - as there first to the breakdown or a 7 who should be there next.

If 7 is seen as a truly separate position, the only real difference between it and 6 is who tackles whom at a scrum but with no back row plays and the scrum as a true back move platform a thing of the past - Open your eyes, the scrum is now an attacking platform again - I'd argue it matters far less than it did, and SA had the roles reversed in this area and French rugby ignored it for a L-R system.

by kingelderfield Thu 2 Jan - 16:07

ChequeredJersey wrote:D- my point was that if we imagined that your genuine 7 was a real and vital concept, we already have several. Robshaw to start, then Armitage (whose carrying is in my eyes more useful to Toulon than his groundwork), Wallace and Fraser at the very least.

Thats not really what you said.

My point is this that a genuine 7 is a real requirement to playing a 15 man all court game. Seperately to this I think Robshaw is a quality player, but he's more a 6 than a 7 which is by the by to the point I was making.

by Sponsored content