England Squad for NZ Tour and 6N

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)

There are a fair few examples across a number of sports where someones form goes downhill when they're moving club or discussing new contracts so fingers crossed.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Ojo still hasn't recovered

Maybe he just wasn't that good? I don't think the NZ tour did any serious damage to Brown's club form. He's been on a steady upward curve for his whole career. It may have been held against him by selectors, but he was the same player.

Yeah that's true, Brown has been playing the way he did for England last AI for years consistently at Quins

"I am not trying to compare Myler to DC, but he is of the same type, he has no weaknesses to exploit, he carries out all the facets of his game to a good standard. "

I'd disagree with that, I'd say that Myler carries out everything to an average standard. There is no facet of his game that is to a good International standard. He's a decent AP FH, no more.

Sorry Sarge, can't agree, he has performed better than any other 10 in the country this season baring possibly Hodgson who has only had a short run since injury. Look at Saints scoring record, second only to Sarries and he tops the kicking percentage table.

Most of Saints success has come from him out playing the opposition 10 and getting the Saints backline moving effectively. the likes of Burrell would not be getting the reviews they have if it wasn't for SM giving them the ball in the right position and at the right time.

Remember Saints have had serious problems with injured centres and fullbacks yet have still managed to score well. Average quality 10s don't make that happen.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Sorry Sarge, can't agree, he has performed better than any other 10 in the country this season baring possibly Hodgson who has only had a short run since injury. Look at Saints scoring record, second only to Sarries and he tops the kicking percentage table.

Most of Saints success has come from him out playing the opposition 10 and getting the Saints backline moving effectively. the likes of Burrell would not be getting the reviews they have if it wasn't for SM giving them the ball in the right position and at the right time.

Remember Saints have had serious problems with injured centres and fullbacks yet have still managed to score well. Average quality 10s don't make that happen.

Erm I think most saint's scores came through continued forward pressure, mauls and George North. Can't remember Myler setting up any tries like Ford and Williams did in the TigersvBath match.

Very interesting hearing Pat Sanderson on BT sport's Sunday Prog saying he wanted to see if Ford could handle the pressure, derby game, old club, England EPS. I don't think anyone would doubt his resolve now, he was excellent.

My reason for picking him in the EPS is, if at the age of 20/21 he can show a lot of great qualities just think what he'll be by 25. He should be around the environment so that when he gets capped, I expect it to be soon, he's comfortable with England.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Sorry Sarge, can't agree, he has performed better than any other 10 in the country this season baring possibly Hodgson who has only had a short run since injury. Look at Saints scoring record, second only to Sarries and he tops the kicking percentage table.

Most of Saints success has come from him out playing the opposition 10 and getting the Saints backline moving effectively. the likes of Burrell would not be getting the reviews they have if it wasn't for SM giving them the ball in the right position and at the right time.

Remember Saints have had serious problems with injured centres and fullbacks yet have still managed to score well. Average quality 10s don't make that happen.

From what you've said you would think Saints are the only team to have injured players. Most sides have had just as many problems.

Injured centres really? Burrell has played every game for you in the AP (you could argue he's being flogged). Your centre issues are non existent compared to other teams.

Myler has also played every single game - no surprise he was limping vs Quins, the bloke is knackered - no break for him! He's played almost double the amount as Farrell.

little_badger wrote:Very interesting hearing Pat Sanderson on BT sport's Sunday Prog saying he wanted to see if Ford could handle the pressure, derby game, old club, England EPS. I don't think anyone would doubt his resolve now, he was excellent.

My reason for picking him in the EPS is, if at the age of 20/21 he can show a lot of great qualities just think what he'll be by 25. He should be around the environment so that when he gets capped, I expect it to be soon, he's comfortable with England.

Play him too hard too soon and at 25 he could easily (if just a little unlucky) be spending half his life on the treatment table

lostinwales wrote:

little_badger wrote:Very interesting hearing Pat Sanderson on BT sport's Sunday Prog saying he wanted to see if Ford could handle the pressure, derby game, old club, England EPS. I don't think anyone would doubt his resolve now, he was excellent.

My reason for picking him in the EPS is, if at the age of 20/21 he can show a lot of great qualities just think what he'll be by 25. He should be around the environment so that when he gets capped, I expect it to be soon, he's comfortable with England.

Play him too hard too soon and at 25 he could easily (if just a little unlucky) be spending half his life on the treatment table

Oh I certainly would not be playing him too much, appearances off the bench, perhaps rotating with Burns. Farrell still starting, which I see continuing for some considerable time. On form we have 3 very promising fly halves, we just need to get the progression right, which losing an old head like Flood makes harder but certainly not impossible.

Unfortunately they are no relatively easy games like Scotland and Italy at home for Ford or Burns to be risked as starters.

If Farrell gets injured, things started looking a bit nervy at 10 - with away trip to France first up.

Also there's still the question whether Ford is big enough to handle the physicality and pressures of full blooded internationals.

He'll be expected to tackle the likes of Picamoles,North,Fofana etc.

ChequeredJersey wrote:The NZ press inventing cowpat off field didn't help there

That all powerful globally reaching NZ media? Ganging up on a poor little British player unable to defend himself about some potential hyperbole exploiting his out of control off field antics?

Maybe the poms need to bring another army of psychologists with them again to help them deal with the fish bowl.

Awwwww. Didums.

I reckon the Brits would be smart to pare their tour back to utter basics. Get themselves dossed out on maraes, or camp out in school gyms. Spend time training on high school paddocks. Get involved with grass roots clubs and embrace the nature of NZ's all encompassing rugby culture. This would be the best way of diffusing the fish bowl and understanding what makes NZ rugby and it's fans tick. Get away from the 5 star tourist "the-arrogant-English-are-coming" attitude.

Surely we will see Mat Hopper, Charlie Walker, Luther Burrell, Andrew Watson, George Ford, Steven Myler, Richard Wigglesworth. In the backs.

What about the forwards?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If the reports are correct Burns is staying in the EPS (Flood ditched), that leaves England drastically short of options for the 6 nations...most likely it will be Farrell and Ford in the matchday squads. The other option is Twelvetrees being the cover and no specialist 10 picked on the bench, something Lancaster used to do as standard with the Saxons.

Lancaster does like to play guys out of position. So does that that mean Robshaw will captain the team from 10?

GloriousEmpire wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:The NZ press inventing cowpat off field didn't help there

That all powerful globally reaching NZ media? Ganging up on a poor little British player unable to defend himself about some potential hyperbole exploiting his out of control off field antics?

Maybe the poms need to bring another army of psychologists with them again to help them deal with the fish bowl.

Awwwww. Didums.

I reckon the Brits would be smart to pare their tour back to utter basics. Get themselves dossed out on maraes, or camp out in school gyms. Spend time training on high school paddocks. Get involved with grass roots clubs and embrace the nature of NZ's all encompassing rugby culture. This would be the best way of diffusing the fish bowl and understanding what makes NZ rugby and it's fans tick. Get away from the 5 star tourist "the-arrogant-English-are-coming" attitude.  

Sounds like Lancaster's thing anyway. But false accusations of r***, awfully precipitated and misreported by both the NZ and UK media aren't things you can say "diddums" about, they are objectively awful and unforgivable

doctor_grey wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If the reports are correct Burns is staying in the EPS (Flood ditched), that leaves England drastically short of options for the 6 nations...most likely it will be Farrell and Ford in the matchday squads. The other option is Twelvetrees being the cover and no specialist 10 picked on the bench, something Lancaster used to do as standard with the Saxons.

Lancaster does like to play guys out of position.  So does that that mean Robshaw will captain the team from 10?  

Feasible

beshocked wrote:Unfortunately they are no relatively easy games like Scotland and Italy at home for Ford or Burns to be risked as starters.

If Farrell gets injured, things started looking a bit nervy at 10 - with away trip to France first up.

Also there's still the question whether Ford is big enough to handle the physicality and pressures of full blooded internationals.

He'll be expected to tackle the likes of Picamoles,North,Fofana etc.

Well if we're leaving any of our fly halfs 1 on1 with those guys we're in trouble!

ChequeredJersey wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:The NZ press inventing cowpat off field didn't help there

That all powerful globally reaching NZ media? Ganging up on a poor little British player unable to defend himself about some potential hyperbole exploiting his out of control off field antics?

Maybe the poms need to bring another army of psychologists with them again to help them deal with the fish bowl.

Awwwww. Didums.

I reckon the Brits would be smart to pare their tour back to utter basics. Get themselves dossed out on maraes, or camp out in school gyms. Spend time training on high school paddocks. Get involved with grass roots clubs and embrace the nature of NZ's all encompassing rugby culture. This would be the best way of diffusing the fish bowl and understanding what makes NZ rugby and it's fans tick. Get away from the 5 star tourist "the-arrogant-English-are-coming" attitude.  

Sounds like Lancaster's thing anyway. But false accusations of r***, awfully precipitated and misreported by both the NZ and UK media aren't things you can say "diddums" about, they are objectively awful and unforgivable

Players should not put themselves in ambiguous circumstances. The victims in this case clearly maintain the opposite equally horrific scenario has occurred. Short answer is players should be more professional and frankly less naive and stupid. They should also behave honourably and legally in instances where they haven't.

Players are on tour to play rugby and represent their country not engage in sordid and ambiguous sexual relationships.

not to worry, cause the media will be waiting, forewarned, with moles and honey-traps aplently for the arrival of the ABs for RWC 2015...

I hope not. That would be a blight on the tournament

alls fair in love and world cups.

i learnt that lesson 4 years ago.

wouldnt blight the tournament for me in the slightest. all part of the game, apparently.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:The NZ press inventing cowpat off field didn't help there

That all powerful globally reaching NZ media? Ganging up on a poor little British player unable to defend himself about some potential hyperbole exploiting his out of control off field antics?

Maybe the poms need to bring another army of psychologists with them again to help them deal with the fish bowl.

Awwwww. Didums.

I reckon the Brits would be smart to pare their tour back to utter basics. Get themselves dossed out on maraes, or camp out in school gyms. Spend time training on high school paddocks. Get involved with grass roots clubs and embrace the nature of NZ's all encompassing rugby culture. This would be the best way of diffusing the fish bowl and understanding what makes NZ rugby and it's fans tick. Get away from the 5 star tourist "the-arrogant-English-are-coming" attitude.  

Sounds like Lancaster's thing anyway. But false accusations of r***, awfully precipitated and misreported by both the NZ and UK media aren't things you can say "diddums" about, they are objectively awful and unforgivable

Players should not put themselves in ambiguous circumstances. The victims in this case clearly maintain the opposite equally horrific scenario has occurred. Short answer is players should be more professional and frankly less naive and stupid. They should also behave honourably and legally in instances where they haven't.

Players are on tour to play rugby and represent their country not engage in sordid and ambiguous sexual relationships.

You really are a tiresome wum GE

Well seeing as GE is about as likely to have ever had female company as I am to captain Guatemala in the World Cup final next year, I can understand his problem

beshocked wrote:Unfortunately they are no relatively easy games like Scotland and Italy at home for Ford or Burns to be risked as starters.

If Farrell gets injured, things started looking a bit nervy at 10 - with away trip to France first up.

Also there's still the question whether Ford is big enough to handle the physicality and pressures of full blooded internationals.

He'll be expected to tackle the likes of Picamoles,North,Fofana etc.

Good points about if Farrell is injured, so have myler train with the squad too by feigning an injury to one of the backs......broken nail that sort of thing.   Though really I am only saying this because my English conservatism is fighting back.

Not big enough hey........well Ford is almost exactly the same height and weight as a chap called Aaron Cruden, his team aren't doing so badly.

kingelderfield wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:The NZ press inventing cowpat off field didn't help there

That all powerful globally reaching NZ media? Ganging up on a poor little British player unable to defend himself about some potential hyperbole exploiting his out of control off field antics?

Maybe the poms need to bring another army of psychologists with them again to help them deal with the fish bowl.

Awwwww. Didums.

I reckon the Brits would be smart to pare their tour back to utter basics. Get themselves dossed out on maraes, or camp out in school gyms. Spend time training on high school paddocks. Get involved with grass roots clubs and embrace the nature of NZ's all encompassing rugby culture. This would be the best way of diffusing the fish bowl and understanding what makes NZ rugby and it's fans tick. Get away from the 5 star tourist "the-arrogant-English-are-coming" attitude.  

Sounds like Lancaster's thing anyway. But false accusations of r***, awfully precipitated and misreported by both the NZ and UK media aren't things you can say "diddums" about, they are objectively awful and unforgivable

Players should not put themselves in ambiguous circumstances. The victims in this case clearly maintain the opposite equally horrific scenario has occurred. Short answer is players should be more professional and frankly less naive and stupid. They should also behave honourably and legally in instances where they haven't.

Players are on tour to play rugby and represent their country not engage in sordid and ambiguous sexual relationships.

You really are a tiresome wum GE

I don't think that saying players should try to avoid being accused of r*** on a rugby tour is being a tiresome WUM.

I wonder if England have not learned the lessons of their disasterous 2011 if this is a widely held conviction!

No smoke without fire.

In my organisation I make it clear to employees that there is a zero tolerance for this kind of allegation. It is their responsibility to avoid being the target if such an allegation. When they complain that people in our situation are targets for predatory women I merely point out the symbiosis that ensuring their avoidance of these ambiguities presents. So far in 15 years we have had no incidence despite being in a profession rampant with questionable human morality.
So it can be achieved. I'm not sure why the RFU can't achieve it. Or why there are so many apologists for it.

Good wum GE.

little badger true about Cruden. Got to give Ford a go. See if he is indeed too small or not. I would consider have him as 2nd choice for the 6 nations with Flood going to France.

To be honest I would probably want Farrell,Ford and Cipriani instead of Myler. Just gives you a little more variety. I don't see anything that Myler offers that the others don't except he's older and has less experience at international level than both Farrell and Cipriani.


Strangely enough I agree with GE. The England side in 2011 going to the RWC acted in a foolish and naive way. They should not try and attract unwanted attention to themselves on tour.

Agree that England should look to emulate NZ's total rugby style more - that means link between backs and forwards in a fluid attack. As of now I feel that the English forwards and English backs are two separate entities. We should look at NZ's culture - what they do right etc.

Got to always look to emulate the best and perhaps add one's own spin on proceedings.

beshocked wrote:little badger true about Cruden. Got to give Ford a go. See if he is indeed too small or not. I would consider have him as 2nd choice for the 6 nations with Flood going to France.

To be honest I would probably want Farrell,Ford and Cipriani instead of Myler. Just gives you a little more variety. I don't see anything that Myler offers that the others don't except he's older and has less experience at international level than both Farrell and Cipriani.


Strangely enough I agree with GE. The England side in 2011 going to the RWC acted in a foolish and naive way. They should not try and attract unwanted attention to themselves on tour.

Agree that England should look to emulate NZ's total rugby style more - that means link between backs and forwards in a fluid attack. As of now I feel that the English forwards and English backs are two separate entities. We should look at NZ's culture - what they do right etc.

Got to always look to emulate the best and perhaps add one's own spin on proceedings.

I would like to comment on the second part of your note. I believe our sports teams should always look to act professionally when on tour (or at any time, really). They represent themselves and our clubs/nations. It is simply the right thing to do. Plus it is a different world compared to twenty years ago. Everyone needs to keep their heads down a bit more than before. Doesn't mean they go out and have fun, just be aware at all times.

Regarding how we play, I agree the England squad doesn't appear to link well between the backs and forwards. I do think it is better than generally believed, but does have a way to go to be fluid. Sarries and Saints generally play a forward oriented game but do link pretty well between forwards and backs. So I don't think we need to look outside of our borders for how to play successfully. Just need Lancaster to open the eyes a bit. We have teams at home who are pretty good.

Take it you feel the pack is ok beshocked so who would you like to see in the backs or do you see it purely as a coaching issue?

doctor grey I agree. Funnily enough this is something I think Chris Ashton has done - he's learnt from 2011 and hasn't had any off field incidents since then - okay someone bottled him but Ashton was the victim.

I agree that we don't necessarily need to look outside our borders - need to look more at Sarries and Saints. Try and play more like them - you would think that with many players being from those two clubs this would happen! When you see a 2nd row like Borthwick offload like he did vs Leicester you wonder why England can't be a bit more fluid.

Borthwick is such an interesting character because he shows so much passion and is quite gobby for Sarries yet for England he was quite boring. I mention it because it just shows how two different setups can make players act differently.

no 7 and 1/2 depends what you want from your pack.

The set piece hasn't been perfect. The scrum was appalling vs Wales. The lineout fell to pieces in the latter stages vs NZ. There are still issues but overall it's a good pack yes.

Someone needs to challenge Wood and Robshaw though plus Vunipola is far ahead of Morgan now. I feel that the pack is one or two injuries away from disarray in the backrow.

Not sure it's just a coaching issue but there's definitely a distinct lack of balance and fluency in the backline.

I do think that Farrell Jr was given more license to play on the Lions tour and for Sarries than he has for England. I have heard from one of my Saracens sources that Farrell Jr has a distinct desire to play more attacking/flatter. It's partly why I am so defensively of Farrell Jr.

England did well enough to tear Scotland and NZ (round 1) apart in attack with Farrell Jr in the 10 shirt.

I don't think that England utilise the centres well enough - need to look to emulate Saracens or Saints in that area in my opinion.

If England pick Ashton then they need to use him properly. Simple as that. Get him looking for work acting in fluid conjunction with the rest of the team. If he's just left on the wing with little to do he's pretty useless. He's not a winger who beats men, he's your support man (he supports attacks and breaks. It's why his style doesn't really suit 7s.

I think Farrell is generally extremely impressive and was great on the Lions tour despite the reservations some held. I'd love to see us go a bit more attacking with Farrell and the centres. I think that we've been quite reserved there for a while and choosing too many players on defensive aspects instead of what they can do to the opposition (although some of this is down to injuries). I know defense is important and there is little point in throwing players to the wolves but the pack is securing enough ball to take a little more risk.

No 7 &1/2 I agree with that but being strong defensive is important too.

For what it's worth this would be my team:

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

9.Dickson
10.Farrell
11.May
12.Barritt
13.Joseph
14.Ashton
15.Brown

16.Marler
17.Wilson
18.Youngs
19.Attwood
20.Morgan
21.Care
22.Ford/36
23.Goode

For my team I have gone with a mix of what I would like and what I think will happen.........for example, I think SL will start Watson but I totally expect him to also start Ashton........hold onto your hats.

1.Marler - Playing very well, Vunipola for the ultimate impact
2.Hartley
3.Cole
4.Lawes
5.Launchbury
6.Wood
7.Robshaw
8.Vunipola

9.Dickson
10.Farrell
11.Watson
12. 36
13. Barritt - I see this happening as he's a committed player, I would go Burrell
14. Ashton - I know he will do it, I personally would go Watson and May but never gonna happen.
15.Brown

16.Youngs
17.Wilson
18. Marler
19.Attwood
20.Morgan
21.Care
22.Ford
23.Burrell - I think he will come off the bench for Barritt

beshocked wrote:doctor grey I agree. Funnily enough this is something I think Chris Ashton has done - he's learnt from 2011 and hasn't had any off field incidents since then - okay someone bottled him but Ashton was the victim.

I agree that we don't necessarily need to look outside our borders - need to look more at Sarries and Saints. Try and play more like them - you would think that with many players being from those two clubs this would happen!  When you see a 2nd row like Borthwick offload like he did vs Leicester you wonder why England can't be a bit more fluid.

Borthwick is such an interesting character because he shows so much passion and is quite gobby for Sarries yet for England he was quite boring. I mention it because it just shows how two different setups can make players act differently.

That is a great point.  Couldn't agree more.  I really think the differences in style of play, and even the approach by players, is down to the the different organisations, less so much the players.  This does show we do have players who can link up and make plays.  If Courtney Lawes can get the ball to Luther Burrell, or Borthwick to Ashton, or Foden to Tom Wood, etc. then it can easily happen with England.  I do think it is happening - somewhat - but not enough to make a consistent attack.

little badger you'll have to explain to me why you would want a winger who has only scored 1 try in 11 matches and is only 20 years old to start vs France.

So you would want to pick Burrell for his first cap for England out of position away vs France?

Two new wingers and an out of position new cap - sounds like a huge risk to me.

doctor grey I agree.

Vs France - and barring injury to players I reckon the side would look something like this -
1.Marler (Corbisiero is injured)
2.Hartley
3.Cole
4.Lawes
5.Launchbury
6.Wood
7.Robshaw
8.Vunipola
9.Youngs
10.Farrell
11.Watson (Wade and Yarde injured) - I do think he is playing well enough at Bath to be given a shot.
12.Twelvetrees
13.Burrell
14.Ashton
15.Brown

16.Mako Vaunipola
17.Wilson
18.Youngs
19.Attwood (Parling injured)
20.Morgan
21.Care
22.Joseph or Eastmond - cant decide as both offer versatility
23.Goode (Foden is injured)

36 covering 10?

Think May, Ashton and Brown will start against France but I do think Watson offers more potential impact than Goode off the bench. I take it you're the same beshocked as the one on the BBC? I don't think we should be getting too caught up in try scoring stats myself but judge more from performance.

Well, in an ideal world Farrell wont get injured. But yes - Both 36 and Goode have had experience at 10.

36 is starting at 10 for Glos isn't he?

I think he did recently - Burns is in a bit of a slump it seems. I'm sure he will still be EPS but don't think that SL will select him on current form.

He needs to try and grab this opportunity though - he could be the starting 10 for the 1st tour test vs NZ if he can get some momentum back.

no 7 & 1/2 yes that's me on BBC.

Goode has shown himself to be a far bigger attacking threat this season in the AP. Perhaps it might be different at international level but Goode is clearly playing better. It's not just the 4 tries he has, he's been beating the defenders etc.

To play for England you must standout. Goode has indeed been one of the best FBs in the AP this season.

I agree it's not just about scoring tries, Ashton has been doing more than just that. He's been involved in the build up/assistance of a lot of the tries. E.g. vs Exeter where he didn't score but made the decisive break and decisive pass.

Oh and another point - if Sarries' back three are being handed lots of tries on a plate, how is this happening and why can't other sides do the same?

Why don't Bath give their back three the luxury to walk in tries? Same with Northampton?

Happy to explain beshocked, as I said it's a hybrid of what I want and what SL will do.

Burrell/Barritt/36 - for me is this going to produce the centre pairing in some shape or form. SL dropped Joseph to the Saxons last time which indicates to me he's not up there in SL's mind. So other 13's sticking their hands up.......um Trinder.....anyone else? Burrell and 36 can swap in and out of position, Burrell has a turn of pace for a big man and breaks the gainline, if we operate best with Manu at 13 Burrell is the most similar player to him. My approach is certainly not without it's issues I admit.

Wingers - In an England shirt recently how many of our wingers score tries anyway?! Watson just looks threatening with ball in hand and offers something different. I think you said yourself (though I might be dreaming it) that England don't use Ashton effectively so go for wingers who play differently to him. Quicker, footwork, elusive, create something from nothing types....because let's face it they'll probably get nothing!

For anyone who didn't watch Bath v Leicester, I think that was the game that will make SL put a big tick next to Ford's name for the bench.

Goode is excellent at full back and I'd agree with an earlier comment from this thread (I think) that if he had a bit more pace he'd be top drawer. At international level attacking wise I think this is holding him back. Ignore The Academy on the BBC he's a fool   

I fail to see this clamour for Watson and Nowell to start on the wing.

Neither are natural wings and offer little try scoring threat between them. I think Watson has 1 in 16 and I don't actually think Nowell has scored in the AP has he?

little badger I suppose it depends where you see the problems. I think the way the England coaches treat the centres and back three is wrong.

The problem is that even the Barritt-Tuilagi partnership wasn't perfect.

I think we need to picking an actual 13 at 13 - this means Joseph should play. Don't want to rock the boat too much so only bring in May on the left wing.

I would pick 36 or Barritt at 12 for that continuity plus they have a bit more experience now.

My desire is for England to start utilising Ashton properly because he's one of the best performing wingers in Europe let alone just England. Give Ashton the license to roam and pop up in attack.

I personally think it would be wrong for Lancaster to waste Ashton. Play two different types of wingers gives England more variety not less. I agree though. If Lancaster refuses to use Ashton properly then he needs to find other options.

Are we all in agreement that Tompkins shouldn't be in contention?
I know he is injured at the moment - but did he do anything to merit his continued presence in the EPS?

If you had to pick 2 inside centres and 2 outsides (irrelevant of current fitness) -
EPS -
Twelvetrees/Barritt
Tuilagi/Burrell

Saxons -
Eastmond/Tompkins
Joseph/Trinder