Is nepotism rife in the England camp?

First topic message reminder :

Trying to keep club allegiance apart, is there not a mild stench of the unjust wafting from the well heeled, manicured gardens of Pennyhill Park?

Could it be argued that Flood fell on his own sword having seen the Lancastrian graffiti daubed on the walls of the English HQ?
Cipriani, a forgotten sinner never to be redeemed.
And most astonishingly, Burns, majestic in Argentina, left on the wasteland of "poor club form", albeit behind a woeful pack that would consign Dan Carter to a nobody in world rugby.

Up pop 2 Daddy's boys, undoubtedly not without merit, but do they really deserve their selection?

Objectively, what do we really think?

Non English members, I encourage you to post as well, as you, for the most part should have the most unbiased view.

Jimpy I suppose it's how you define mediocre. Who you compare England fly halves to will obviously make the difference.

Farrell won the battle of the 10s vs Carter in 2012. Not bad for a mediocre 10....

I wouldn't be out of place to say that Farrell Jr is currently the 2nd best 10 in the NH after Sexton. Oh and remember Farrell is just 22.

Surely a player's prime is 27-29?

Of course Flood has been a good servant of England - 60 caps at the age of 28 but he hasn't been able to hit the heights of the 2009-10 season for example.

No. Farrell is the greatest fly half to grace the game, ever, in history. Period.

At least that's what Farrell snr told me.

beshocked wrote:Jimpy I suppose it's how you define mediocre. Who you compare England fly halves to will obviously make the difference.

Farrell won the battle of the 10s vs Carter in 2012. Not bad for a mediocre 10....

I wouldn't be out of place to say that Farrell Jr is currently the 2nd best 10 in the NH after Sexton. Oh and remember Farrell is just 22.

Surely a player's prime is 27-29?

Of course Flood has been a good servant of England - 60 caps at the age of 28 but he hasn't been able to hit the heights of the 2009-10 season for example.

A player's prime will depend on their personal skill, commitment and a whole host of other factors. age will come into it as physical presence and mental fortitiude tend to increase with age to a point, but to say that 27-29 is the prime envelope is prescriptive. Plenty of players have peaked and fallen away before the age of 27 and many have gone on to be outstanding servents of their country after the age of 29.

Flood is out of form, no doubt about it. Regardless of whether Farrell got the better of Carter in 2010, he's failed to better subsequent NZ fly Halfs. I may be being harsh by labelling him mediocre, but for me, he could be a much better player if he didn't put the ball skyward half the time. In terms of crossing the gainline, Myler is far superior. Farrell is a better percentage kicker... it seems we can't have our cake and eat it in England at the moment. I'd have Farrell over any of the other names purely because he's the best of the bunch (well, at least he can usually convert penalties into points anyway) and is growing into the role. For me, the fact that he may well be the 2nd best Number 10 in the NH is more an indication of how far behind the SH we are than anything else.

Jimpy yes you are right. It is wrong of me to suggest that a player's prime is always going to be 27-29 but one would expect that with more experience a player to improve.

Farrell Jr has only faced two NZ 10s so we can't really write Farrell Jr off just yet. Plus England were missing cutting edge of Tuilagi in the centres.

fair enough but I know that it is Farrell Jr's desire to play flatter and more attacking.

Farrell Jr is not a natural attacking player - I think we all know that but he's becoming more so and with two breaks in his last two 6 nations he is getting through and creating chances.

I personally think Farrell will continue to improve - not the finished article but I think he's got the potential to become an overall decent 10 option for England for a sustained period.

In regards to Myler vs Farrell Jr, Myler is not proven at international level. There's not much comparison at the moment. Ford has leapfrogged Myler and deservedly so.

beshocked wrote:Jimpy yes you are right. It is wrong of me to suggest that a player's prime is always going to be 27-29 but one would expect that with more experience a player to improve.

Farrell Jr has only faced two NZ 10s so we can't really write Farrell Jr off just yet. Plus England were missing cutting edge of Tuilagi in the centres.

fair enough but I know that it is Farrell Jr's desire to play flatter and more attacking.

Farrell Jr is not a natural attacking player - I think we all know that but he's becoming more so and with two breaks in his last two 6 nations he is getting through and creating chances.

I personally think Farrell will continue to improve - not the finished article but I think he's got the potential to become an overall decent 10 option for England for a sustained period.

In regards to Myler vs Farrell Jr, Myler is not proven at international level. There's not much comparison at the moment. Ford has leapfrogged Myler and deservedly so.

Nor is Ford though...

I wish Tigers had given Ford more of a chance to develop his game, as Bath have done. but he was always in Flood's shadow. Mind you, he is still rather callow, more so when at Leicester, so Cockerill should probably be forgiven for not picking him for first team rugby on a routine basis. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Here's a thought that perhaps could be discussed - Farrell jr, I don't think, many here have a problem with (as a whole), but personally, i think Farrell Snr is stunting the growth of the team. I can't put my finger on what it is, but you get the feeling he's coaching on the side of conservatism.

Some good points made by all excluding the OP here. Certainly in the first couple of rounds Farrell has shown much more attacking instincts, he's made a couple of lovely breaks, and is really growing into the role very nicely. I haven't seen much of Ford (don't watch all that much AP as I live in France) so will pass comment there. I like what little I've seen of Burns, but by all accounts his form this season has been awful, so... You can't pick him simply based on looking good against a very poor Argentina side.

I'm not sure I understand the talk of Lancaster and co "alienating" Flood either. Flood was quite clearly a solid second choice behind Farrell (a decision I agree with, not that it matters). People seem to have been suggesting that England should have been starting Flood simply to keep him "on-side" and not wander off to France. I'm really really not sure that argument holds any water whatsoever.

For me Farrell is developping very nicely into a very fine all-round FH. For him to lose the FH spot would take either a drop in form on his part or someone else showing he deserves to be there more: not sure you can say that about Burns or anyone else at the moment, the word "potential" is just too easy to bandy about, one needs to see some evidence...

It's odd how this misconception that Andy and Owen Farrell are related has got around. I think people might have them confused with the Farrelly brothers. England supporters should be wary of falling into that trap. For years we all thought Tony and Rory Underwood were siblings.

As for George Ford, I think it's great that the grandson of former US president Gerald Ford is making an impact in the game we love. Sure, there will always be accusations that the RFU is just pandering to the American market but, hey, the kid can play!

In answer to the OP. No. I think that those who want to see it as nepotism - will see it as such.
Those without an axe to grind (or bridge to hide under) won't.

 

I am a Glaws fan and Freddy Burns is not playing well, he was excellent in Argentina but currently he is indecisive, and the only time he makes a decision it is a bad one!!!!

The question is how did Andy Farrell get in the England team in the first place and then how did he get fast tracked as England backs coach after only one year coaching in Union? Surely a fairly idiotic move.

Has nobody noticed that he couldn't play union and now England's backs are all over the place?

GunsGerms wrote:The question is how did Andy Farrell get in the England team in the first place and then how did he get fast tracked as England backs coach after only one year coaching in Union? Surely a fairly idiotic move.

Has nobody noticed that he couldn't play union and now England's backs are all over the place?

That would make a better OP!
However I would probably put it down to his defensive coaching of the backs. Englands defence (when we have players playing in their correct positions) is pretty damn good.

Some might argue that defence is all that's been coached....but hey ho.

GunsGerms wrote:The question is how did Andy Farrell get in the England team in the first place and then how did he get fast tracked as England backs coach after only one year coaching in Union? Surely a fairly idiotic move.

Has nobody noticed that he couldn't play union and now England's backs are all over the place?

Yep, I pointed that out a few months ago. I was accused of being anti-English.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:The question is how did Andy Farrell get in the England team in the first place and then how did he get fast tracked as England backs coach after only one year coaching in Union? Surely a fairly idiotic move.

Has nobody noticed that he couldn't play union and now England's backs are all over the place?

Yep, I pointed that out a few months ago. I was accused of being anti-English.

  Hey - don't let it bother you big fella - you've been accused of a lot worse   

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:The question is how did Andy Farrell get in the England team in the first place and then how did he get fast tracked as England backs coach after only one year coaching in Union? Surely a fairly idiotic move.

Has nobody noticed that he couldn't play union and now England's backs are all over the place?

Yep, I pointed that out a few months ago. I was accused of being anti-English.

Those two things aren't linked.

Farrell is the defensive/ forwards coach. Not done a bad job tbh. Mike Catt is the backs coach. As for the Op......er.....NO.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Some good points made by all excluding the OP here. Certainly in the first couple of rounds Farrell has shown much more attacking instincts, he's made a couple of lovely breaks, and is really growing into the role very nicely. I haven't seen much of Ford (don't watch all that much AP as I live in France) so will pass comment there. I like what little I've seen of Burns, but by all accounts his form this season has been awful, so... You can't pick him simply based on looking good against a very poor Argentina side.

I'm not sure I understand the talk of Lancaster and co "alienating" Flood either. Flood was quite clearly a solid second choice behind Farrell (a decision I agree with, not that it matters). People seem to have been suggesting that England should have been starting Flood simply to keep him "on-side" and not wander off to France. I'm really really not sure that argument holds any water whatsoever.

For me Farrell is developping very nicely into a very fine all-round FH. For him to lose the FH spot would take either a drop in form on his part or someone else showing he deserves to be there more: not sure you can say that about Burns or anyone else at the moment, the word "potential" is just too easy to bandy about, one needs to see some evidence...

I disagree, when Flood was dropped he was, IMO, a far better option than Farrell. On form, I still believe he is a much more rounded player. Flood was an international quality FH, perfectly good enough to win against good teams. I think with the pack as it is now, he'd be a very useful player. Burns, who knows, but neither his form nor record are as good as Flood's overall. Ford, again, could be great, could be too small. But letting Flood go on the basis that Ford or Burns might step up within the next 12 months is a big gamble, and I think an unnecessary one.

Breadvan wrote:Farrell is the defensive/ forwards coach. Not done a bad job tbh. Mike Catt is the backs coach. As for the Op......er.....NO.

According to the RFU website he was initially appointed as backs coach? Anyone know for sure what he actually does?

Graham Rountree is forwards coach and Mike Catt skills coach.

Hood83 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Some good points made by all excluding the OP here. Certainly in the first couple of rounds Farrell has shown much more attacking instincts, he's made a couple of lovely breaks, and is really growing into the role very nicely. I haven't seen much of Ford (don't watch all that much AP as I live in France) so will pass comment there. I like what little I've seen of Burns, but by all accounts his form this season has been awful, so... You can't pick him simply based on looking good against a very poor Argentina side.

I'm not sure I understand the talk of Lancaster and co "alienating" Flood either. Flood was quite clearly a solid second choice behind Farrell (a decision I agree with, not that it matters). People seem to have been suggesting that England should have been starting Flood simply to keep him "on-side" and not wander off to France. I'm really really not sure that argument holds any water whatsoever.

For me Farrell is developping very nicely into a very fine all-round FH. For him to lose the FH spot would take either a drop in form on his part or someone else showing he deserves to be there more: not sure you can say that about Burns or anyone else at the moment, the word "potential" is just too easy to bandy about, one needs to see some evidence...

I disagree, when Flood was dropped he was, IMO, a far better option than Farrell. On form, I still believe he is a much more rounded player. Flood was an international quality FH, perfectly good enough to win against good teams. I think with the pack as it is now, he'd be a very useful player. Burns, who knows, but neither his form nor record are as good as Flood's overall. Ford, again, could be great, could be too small. But letting Flood go on the basis that Ford or Burns might step up within the next 12 months is a big gamble, and I think an unnecessary one.

so you're saying they should be starting the guy they view as the inferior player to keep him happy? I agree that Flood would still be a very useful player for England, but for me he's rightly behind Farrell in the pecking order, and if he isn't willing to accept that, I don't think we should blame the England management.

As for your first sentence, Flood was dropped after the SA game I think, in which he missed two makeable kicks (Farrell nailed all his, and was part of an England fightback which nearly saw them nick the game). In the next game Farrell started against NZ and England blew them away, so while hindsight is a wonderful thing, in this particular instance it certainly seems to agree with the coaches call.

Think England are coming along nicely now. think a few people may be (un)pleasantly surpriseed by Englands backs on Saturday.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think England are coming along nicely now. think a few people may be (un)pleasantly surpriseed by Englands backs on Saturday.

I hope you're right. I'm looking forward to seeing what they can do. The potential is there I feel, but they need to be living up to that potential now.
Particularly looking forward to seeing how Burrell and Nowell get on this weekend.  

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I'm not sure I understand the talk of Lancaster and co "alienating" Flood either. Flood was quite clearly a solid second choice behind Farrell (a decision I agree with, not that it matters). People seem to have been suggesting that England should have been starting Flood simply to keep him "on-side" and not wander off to France. I'm really really not sure that argument holds any water whatsoever.

Not sure alienate is the correct word, and anyone suggesting coaches should select an "inferior" player just to keep them happy are plain daft - though has anyone said that?

Before telling Leicester he would not be staying, Flood had a heart to heart with Stuart Lancaster and asked what he had to do to start. He was effectively told that nothing he did would matter so long as the incumbent did not mess up and that England would be looking to blood younger players as back-up. On that basis he decided that it was the right time to take the French money.

Of course his form has not been good, not helped by multiple concussions and hamstring injuries, but like Burns he is not playing well enough to be anywhere near an England shirt. His two best performances of the season have come against Ulster - perhaps the only games that Notch has seen?

geoff999rugby wrote:

Notch wrote:I still think Toby Flood is the best 10 in England, but given his move to France and the need to build towards the RWC Ford and Farrell are absolutely the right selections.

Flod was crap at the weekend - his heads not right.
He should be no where near the team

I agree with Beshocked again ! - this is becoming a worrying trend  

Unfortunately, as a Tigers fan this is correct, his head is somewhere else at the moment and it isn't helping us. As Tiger says, injuries haven't helped but I think it is more a psychological thing now.

As far as the other fly halves go, Farrell is there on merit. I have been one of the Farrell skeptics, not that I didn't think he was an international quality kicker or have the temperament, but I wasn't sure if he had the ability to get our backs moving in a way that would take us to the top of the game. However, I have been mightily impressed with him so far in this 6 nations in how he is really starting to stand flatter. Whether that is him gaining more confidence or a change in the way he is being asked to play I don't know but it is definitely a good thing.

Ford is only 20 but has all the ability in the world attacking wise. Whether he will be able to carry that on at the international level, no-one knows, but there is only one way to find out. He isn't the finished article yet but no-one is at 20 years old, but he has shown enough ability and execution of that ability for me to be put in the squad. Now Flood has gone, I see it as a direct battle between Ford and Burns for the other spot and at the moment Burns is not having a great season so Ford deserves his place.

Some valid points well argued but still too much club bias guff and "straight out of the press" rubbish peddled by many on this board. Thank goodness, not a true reflection of rugby opinion in the real world.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Some good points made by all excluding the OP here. Certainly in the first couple of rounds Farrell has shown much more attacking instincts, he's made a couple of lovely breaks, and is really growing into the role very nicely. I haven't seen much of Ford (don't watch all that much AP as I live in France) so will pass comment there. I like what little I've seen of Burns, but by all accounts his form this season has been awful, so... You can't pick him simply based on looking good against a very poor Argentina side.

I'm not sure I understand the talk of Lancaster and co "alienating" Flood either. Flood was quite clearly a solid second choice behind Farrell (a decision I agree with, not that it matters). People seem to have been suggesting that England should have been starting Flood simply to keep him "on-side" and not wander off to France. I'm really really not sure that argument holds any water whatsoever.

For me Farrell is developping very nicely into a very fine all-round FH. For him to lose the FH spot would take either a drop in form on his part or someone else showing he deserves to be there more: not sure you can say that about Burns or anyone else at the moment, the word "potential" is just too easy to bandy about, one needs to see some evidence...

The football boards are waiting for you..........

MissBlennerhassett wrote:Some valid points well argued but still too much club bias guff and "straight out of the press" rubbish peddled by many on this board. Thank goodness, not a true reflection of rugby opinion in the real world.

Be fair. You've only made 20 odd posts.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

MissBlennerhassett wrote:Some valid points well argued but still too much club bias guff and "straight out of the press" rubbish peddled by many on this board. Thank goodness, not a true reflection of rugby opinion in the real world.

Be fair. You've only made 20 odd posts.

HaHa! Nope the press are also loved up with young Owen (they love the family connection) and as I keep saying, not entirely without reason. He has potential to be good but IMO not great, whereas Burns is another thing altogether. And I'm afraid my Rosslyn Park bias has little effect on this argument.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Some good points made by all excluding the OP here. Certainly in the first couple of rounds Farrell has shown much more attacking instincts, he's made a couple of lovely breaks, and is really growing into the role very nicely. I haven't seen much of Ford (don't watch all that much AP as I live in France) so will pass comment there. I like what little I've seen of Burns, but by all accounts his form this season has been awful, so... You can't pick him simply based on looking good against a very poor Argentina side.

I'm not sure I understand the talk of Lancaster and co "alienating" Flood either. Flood was quite clearly a solid second choice behind Farrell (a decision I agree with, not that it matters). People seem to have been suggesting that England should have been starting Flood simply to keep him "on-side" and not wander off to France. I'm really really not sure that argument holds any water whatsoever.

For me Farrell is developping very nicely into a very fine all-round FH. For him to lose the FH spot would take either a drop in form on his part or someone else showing he deserves to be there more: not sure you can say that about Burns or anyone else at the moment, the word "potential" is just too easy to bandy about, one needs to see some evidence...

I disagree, when Flood was dropped he was, IMO, a far better option than Farrell. On form, I still believe he is a much more rounded player. Flood was an international quality FH, perfectly good enough to win against good teams. I think with the pack as it is now, he'd be a very useful player. Burns, who knows, but neither his form nor record are as good as Flood's overall. Ford, again, could be great, could be too small. But letting Flood go on the basis that Ford or Burns might step up within the next 12 months is a big gamble, and I think an unnecessary one.

so you're saying they should be starting the guy they view as the inferior player to keep him happy? I agree that Flood would still be a very useful player for England, but for me he's rightly behind Farrell in the pecking order, and if he isn't willing to accept that, I don't think we should blame the England management.

As for your first sentence, Flood was dropped after the SA game I think, in which he missed two makeable kicks (Farrell nailed all his, and was part of an England fightback which nearly saw them nick the game). In the next game Farrell started against NZ and England blew them away, so while hindsight is a wonderful thing, in this particular instance it certainly seems to agree with the coaches call.

Not at all. I'm saying he was very obviously an important, experienced 10 who should have been second choice at worst but also encouraged that if his form returned he could win back his position. Which I think would have been perfectly reasonable. ALL of our FHs are now going to be young and pretty inexperienced, even Farrell.

I thought the NZ game was a bit of an aberration, but in any case I don't think it proved anything. I don't think Farrell did anything of particular note that marked him out as superior to Flood. Best you could say was he was in an important role in a team that played very well. His individual contribution? Nothing out of the ordinary.

Anyway, my point is not that Flood should be starting ahead of him, it's that Lancaster could and should have managed the situation better so that our only experienced FH, who I think has a well-rounded game, is not now off to France, and we're left with complete tyros this close to a WC. I think that was poor, personally.

MissBlennerhassett wrote:Some valid points well argued but still too much club bias guff and "straight out of the press" rubbish peddled by many on this board. Thank goodness, not a true reflection of rugby opinion in the real world.

Well the Leicester supporters have said that Flood's head isnt in the right place and the Gloucs supporters have said that Burns' head isnt in the right place.

I think it must just be some sort of club conspiracy to keep their players at home....

lostinwales wrote:

MissBlennerhassett wrote:Some valid points well argued but still too much club bias guff and "straight out of the press" rubbish peddled by many on this board. Thank goodness, not a true reflection of rugby opinion in the real world.

Well the Leicester supporters have said that Flood's head isnt in the right place and the Gloucs supporters have said that Burns' head isnt in the right place.

I think it must just be some sort of club conspiracy to keep their players at home....

Don't you think being dropped by England having essentially only ever having played well for them, might have something to do with this?????? After Argentina, Burns must be thinking "what more can I do"? A surefire way so sap your confidence.

MissBlennerhassett wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

MissBlennerhassett wrote:Some valid points well argued but still too much club bias guff and "straight out of the press" rubbish peddled by many on this board. Thank goodness, not a true reflection of rugby opinion in the real world.

Well the Leicester supporters have said that Flood's head isnt in the right place and the Gloucs supporters have said that Burns' head isnt in the right place.

I think it must just be some sort of club conspiracy to keep their players at home....

Don't you think being dropped by England having essentially only ever having played well for them, might have something to do with this?????? After Argentina, Burns must be thinking "what more can I do"? A surefire way so sap your confidence.

Your nose is so far up Burn's backside, are you sure your name isn't really Pinocchio?

Jimpy wrote:

MissBlennerhassett wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

MissBlennerhassett wrote:Some valid points well argued but still too much club bias guff and "straight out of the press" rubbish peddled by many on this board. Thank goodness, not a true reflection of rugby opinion in the real world.

Well the Leicester supporters have said that Flood's head isnt in the right place and the Gloucs supporters have said that Burns' head isnt in the right place.

I think it must just be some sort of club conspiracy to keep their players at home....

Don't you think being dropped by England having essentially only ever having played well for them, might have something to do with this?????? After Argentina, Burns must be thinking "what more can I do"? A surefire way so sap your confidence.

Your nose is so far up Burn's backside, are you sure your name isn't really Pinocchio?

Don't know, is this cyber humour?

MissBlennerhassett wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

MissBlennerhassett wrote:Some valid points well argued but still too much club bias guff and "straight out of the press" rubbish peddled by many on this board. Thank goodness, not a true reflection of rugby opinion in the real world.

Well the Leicester supporters have said that Flood's head isnt in the right place and the Gloucs supporters have said that Burns' head isnt in the right place.

I think it must just be some sort of club conspiracy to keep their players at home....

Don't you think being dropped by England having essentially only ever having played well for them, might have something to do with this?????? After Argentina, Burns must be thinking "what more can I do"? A surefire way so sap your confidence.

Nope.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Be fair. You've only made 20 odd posts.

Or has she? Wouldn't be the first person who's been banned and/or re-spawned as a different user.

I agree with the with the general sentiment of the thread. For me Farrell is the deserved incumbent, he's steadily improved and I think we're lucky to have a player like him at such a young age (wasn't Sexton about 23/24 when he became first choice at Leinster?). Seems mentally tough and prepared to improve the weaker areas of his game. Been impressed by how well he seems to like playing alongside Care.

I questioned Ford's decision to leave Tigers amid the rumors that he wanted to be starting. Felt at 19/20 he should wait and learn but in fairness to him (and his dad advisers) his performances have justified him starting and he's made the England squad at the right time to be really in the mix for next years world cup. Would he be in the same position if he'd stayed at Tigers behind club captain Flood? I also disagree with some that it was his fault for the Chiefs try at the weekend, for me Garvey was more to blame.

Flood is off to France and isn't playing well enough anyway and Burns' form this season isn't near good enough (although I'm hopeful that the Tigers will turn that around and also improve his defense). I saw nothing from Cipriani against Saracens (or the others times I've seen him) that suggests he's at a good enough level to deserve another shot. Although solid club player that he is (and I'm a Saints fan) Myler isn't really international standard. He could do a solid enough job in an emergency (kind of like Grayson at Saints before him) but that would be all.

Nepotism? Not for me. The England 10 & 21 selected for this weekend are in my opinion the best options available.

Englands game plan doesn't seem to suit Flood. There appears to be a mis conception about the number of games Ford played for Tigers. IIRC he only played a few games less than Flood(who was out due to internationals & injury) but didnt play well enough to displace Flood.

Burns is off to Leicester right... he won't be forgotten.

I think England are lucky to have players like Farrell, Ford, Burns, Cipriani, Lamb, Slade etc

Think about it... couple of years ago you had Andy Goode.

broadlandboy did Martin Johnson's gameplan not suit Flood either? To be honest I think it's just an excuse.

fa0019 I worry that Burns could be the next Lamb or Geraghty....

Lamb's Leicester career was hardly a stellar success.

Does Burns have the mental capacity to succeed at international level?

Leicester should be able to whip Burns into shape but if they can't......Leicester have high expectations and why not - for such a successful club they expect results.

Burns must deliver.

broadlandboy wrote:There appears to be a mis conception about the number of games Ford played for Tigers. IIRC he only played a few games less than Flood(who was out due to internationals & injury) but didnt play well enough to displace Flood.

Agreed but there was no guarantee this season that he would see much game time, especially with Flood being made permanent captain and Cockerill's reluctance in the past to give younger players too much game time. Turned out differently due to Flood's injury issues this season but Ford wasn't to know that when he made the decision to move on.

It's pretty obvious why Burns isn't in the squad - he's been shocking of late. Even after the public knowledge of his move to Tigers, he hasn't stepped up at all.

Good in Argentina, yes, but nowhere near that standard since. He's still in the EPS remember, just needs to get back to where he was and we have 3 cracking 10s on our hands.

broadlandboy wrote:...There appears to be a mis conception about the number of games Ford played for Tigers...

I don't think there's any misconception - the record is freely available. It wasn't the number of starts so much as the quality and timing. Cockerill had every right to decide he'd only give Ford a run of games if he was outplaying Flood but that wasn't the way to keep the younger player at Leicester.

Who knows whether a string of Premiership games would have suited Ford last year too, but it has clearly done him the world of good at Bath.

Perhaps Tigers were aware of Flood's frustration at being sidelined with England and were concerned that he might not care to be stood down more often in favour of the younger man. As it is, they fell between two stools and ended up losing both players.

MissBlennerhassett wrote:Trying to keep club allegiance apart, is there not a mild stench of the unjust wafting from the well heeled, manicured gardens of Pennyhill Park?

Could it be argued that Flood fell on his own sword having seen the Lancastrian graffiti daubed on the walls of the English HQ?
Cipriani, a forgotten sinner never to be redeemed.
And most astonishingly, Burns, majestic in Argentina, left on the wasteland of "poor club form", albeit behind a woeful pack that would consign Dan Carter to a nobody in world rugby.

Up pop 2 Daddy's boys, undoubtedly not without merit, but do they really deserve their selection?

Objectively, what do we really think?

Non English members, I encourage you to post as well, as you, for the most part should have the most unbiased view.

the best managers cut certain avenues and players .

 its about having a plan and focus.. 

you cant play players based on international form 1 year ago if they are rubbish at there clubs.(burns)

ciprani is the only one i would bring in., But i have a feeling SL doesnt want to waste his energy on playing a game plan and other players to accommodate him. The guy may not be the type we need in the dressing room either.

I would personally pick him. But SL can be trusted much more than I.

Farrel is a great player- so underrated by so many. I am not sure what they watch when they watch him. But its allways different to what i see.

He has proved time and time again to play in the exact way SL wanst him to and is also getting better every single game..

This boy could be world class. I have no doubts.

He has the perfect attitude as a player, with abundant skill levels(even if others cant see it)

He is also a quality kicker, but that form has dipped. But every kicker has that odd spell.

Most if not all would still back him to score in the final seconds of a game to win

I still maintain that if SL had kept faith in Burns, he would be playing a lot better than he is now. But okay I concede, as it stands he probably shouldn't be in the team. If SL and the other coaches had nurtured him or Flood or Myler for that matter to the same extent they have Farrell, I feel we may have a more exciting FH in the 10 shirt for England today. Just not sure there has been a level playing field on this issue. However I will get behind Farrell and just hope he can repay some of the enormous amount of opportunity that has been placed in his lap

I think that's where you differing Miss. You want exciting the rest of us want the best.

“Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius.” I'm afraid you're falling in to that typical England fan mentality and aiming way too low. It's elementary my dear 7 1/2!

no we want the best thats all.

we can still remember being the best.

we have been the best..  SL is progressing nicely

fa0019 wrote:Burns is off to Leicester right... he won't be forgotten.

I think England are lucky to have players like Farrell, Ford, Burns, Cipriani, Lamb, Slade etc

Think about it... couple of years ago you had Andy Goode.

Aye, that really put things into perspective. *shudder*

Cumbrian wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Burns is off to Leicester right... he won't be forgotten.

I think England are lucky to have players like Farrell, Ford, Burns, Cipriani, Lamb, Slade etc

Think about it... couple of years ago you had Andy Goode.

Aye, that really put things into perspective. *shudder*

Worcester wish they still had him!

Metal Tiger wrote:A mild wum but not a bad effort for a beginner. Rating 2/5.
You need to read up on GG/GE and see how its done.

Actually it reads exactly like a GG/GE post.

nobbled wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:A mild wum but not a bad effort for a beginner. Rating 2/5.
You need to read up on GG/GE and see how its done.

Actually it reads exactly like a GG/GE post.

It's definately a banned user returning under a new name, and I was going to say, it looks a lot like a Grey Ghost effort. I think he may have a duplicate account.

beshocked wrote:broadlandboy did Martin Johnson's gameplan not suit Flood either? To be honest I think it's just an excuse.

fa0019 I worry that Burns could be the next Lamb or Geraghty....

Lamb's Leicester career was hardly a stellar success.

Does Burns have the mental capacity to succeed at international level?

Leicester should be able to whip Burns into shape but if they can't......Leicester have high expectations and why not - for such a successful club they expect results.

Burns must deliver.

Completely agree. If only because if he doesn't buck his ideas up and play himself into contention for international selection, the OP will cry and stamp his feet and accuse Stuart Lancaster of nepotism.

    oh Ghostie