Englands Tour of NZ - The Politics

First topic message reminder :

This thread has become a political thread so we'll make it that.

The standard international window (as defined by the IRB) for the summer (our) tours are for the second and third weekends in June. Most people consider the 1st weekend to be the 1st full weekend. This year it would be the 7th/8th and the second weekend would be 14th/15th. edit: window includes the 4th weekend

And the pro12 final is also on the same date as the premiership final and that is controlled by the unions. So with all due respect blackcanelion, you talking out your arse

The IRB have managed to squeak 5 weeks of rugby into the June window.  There's the England v Barbarians game on week 1 (1 June) and a Scot v SA game on week 5 (28 June).

I didn't appreciate this, but all the international teams are playing on 7 June (week 2), which means it wasn't a case of NZRU trying to shaft England (not that we would).  It's an IRB balls up, tut tut     

Does anyone know when the week 1 (1 June) England v Barbarians game was first set up?  Could it be that this game was the cause for making week 1 as 1 June?  Trying to maximise the amount of games (and money) in the window?

The England Barbarians game isn't part of the international window. It's outside. The international window is three weekends, 2nd, 3rd and 4th in June. The IRB have no further involvement other than agreeing union organised games outside this.

South Africa aren't. They're playing on the 2nd weekend in June (14th) I believe.

Key is cancelling the SH cash cow of the Lions. Then we could start the season earlier.

The thing is, the finals are outside the international window (as is the first test, if you take the RFU's interpretation!) so the players are available to the clubs. To overrule that would mess up the detente that's been carefully hammered out between clubs and the RFU. Not worth it.
 
The only exception to this might be if Leicester make the final, because if you took Richard Cockerill's international players away, he would probably explode live on screen. And I think we would all pay to see that.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

ebop wrote:Interesting, thanks guys. I'm not saying the fans in NZ would be happy either. I recall there was a minor uproar when ABs got yanked from the domestic final (or semis). Personally, I was ok with it, but they weren't my clubs. It's hard to know what the yanked players thought, played all year to make the playoffs and then not being able to finish it off. But on the flip, they got to represent their country.

ps. Hammer, 31 May is 1 June (in NZ), you guys need to catch up

So Saturday 31st May is Saturday 1st June in NZ? Are you sure about that?   

W L Overate, Exeter got close the other year didn't they? Seem to remember a late game against Saints that you lost and ended your chance. So you've threatened, just haven't followed through yet

Yep, Exe had a sniff of the semis 2 seasons ago, but weren't really a threat. Regardless of who qualifies for the playoffs and whether the playoffs are seen as good or evil (I'd prefer a divisional tournament), it'd be a travesty if finalists are weakened after 8 months of effort.

We going to have to agree to disagree. This is part a long ongoing saga that goes back until at least the mid 1990's. The media debate is as much about each side avoiding to place the blame on each other. It's patently obvious that first time June started on a Sunday that there was going to be potential confusion. Given that the club competitions have been progressive pushed out it was always going to be an issue. Without doubt the IRB should have clarified the dates. Equally, the clubs aren't blameless in that this was obviously a potential issue and it looks like they didn't do due diligence. They just assumed it would be fine. Once again the people who lose out on this are yet again the SH rugby fans.

blackcanelion wrote:We going to have to agree to disagree. This is part a long ongoing saga that goes back until at least the mid 1990's. The media debate is as much about each side avoiding to place the blame on each other. It's patently obvious that first time June started on a Sunday that there was going to be potential confusion. Given that the club competitions have been progressive pushed out it was always going to be an issue. Without doubt the IRB should have clarified the dates. Equally, the clubs aren't blameless in that this was obviously a potential issue and it looks like they didn't do due diligence. They just assumed it would be fine. Once again the people who lose out on this are yet again the SH rugby fans.

Hang on a sec. It's not as if the English club schedule has much room for manoeuvre. The club competition hasn't been "progressively pushed out" - it's the same number of weekends it has been for several years. What would you have them do? Drop a round of the AP? Play an extra round in the middle of the internationals? Let the AP clash with the European finals (and hope that no English club makes the finals)?

Besides, the whole point of international windows is that clubs should be schedule their games however they like as long as they remain outside the windows. Which the clubs have done. The issue is a misalignment between the RFU and the NZRU, and the refusal of the IRB to intervene and sort it out.

I agree that the SH viewers lose out as a result, but so do the NH ones. And it's not because of the clubs.

Poorfour wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:We going to have to agree to disagree. This is part a long ongoing saga that goes back until at least the mid 1990's. The media debate is as much about each side avoiding to place the blame on each other. It's patently obvious that first time June started on a Sunday that there was going to be potential confusion. Given that the club competitions have been progressive pushed out it was always going to be an issue. Without doubt the IRB should have clarified the dates. Equally, the clubs aren't blameless in that this was obviously a potential issue and it looks like they didn't do due diligence. They just assumed it would be fine. Once again the people who lose out on this are yet again the SH rugby fans.

Hang on a sec. It's not as if the English club schedule has much room for manoeuvre. The club competition hasn't been "progressively pushed out" - it's the same number of weekends it has been for several years. What would you have them do? Drop a round of the AP? Play an extra round in the middle of the internationals? Let the AP clash with the European finals (and hope that no English club makes the finals)?

Besides, the whole point of international windows is that clubs should be schedule their games however they like as long as they remain outside the windows. Which the clubs have done. The issue is a misalignment between the RFU and the NZRU, and the refusal of the IRB to intervene and sort it out.

I agree that the SH viewers lose out as a result, but so do the NH ones. And it's not because of the clubs.

You are right. There isn't much room for the clubs to maneuver. But that is why the window was introduced. It's addressing an issue that's been occurring over the last decade or two. One that NZ, Australia and South Africa have raised a number of time over that period. There was (is) too much rugby being played. Unions make profits out of home series and tournaments. In order to have the cash cow tours in November they have to commit to June tours.

You are right about the window. I agree. The issue here is whether the club finals weekend is the last weekend in May or the first weekend in June. I don't really care which it's assigned to, although I would point out that the IRB's stance is consistent with the November tours (e.g. 2010). The reality is the IRB didn't outline how it would work in this situation and the relative national sides and club sides chose different interpretations. Both have valid arguments. The real issue is they didn't communicate. Given the IRB has stated the international window is sacrosanct and the most important and that clubs must release players. You would think that the relevant unions and clubs would make sure that they were in agreement. This doesn't appear to have happened until two late. Given history how can anyone be surprised that we are once again having a tour where the one of the teams will be short of players due to club commitments. IMO the clubs are a significant part of the problem.

I don't think that both NH and SH fans are equally affected. If you are living in Auckland you may be buying tests to an understrength England. One of the reasons the international window has been put in place is because understrength sides where undermining the financials of SH unions. Fans don't necessarily want to see a whitewash of an understrength side. There was a lot public feedback on understrength sides in the past and it got to the point where SH unions were fed up. It was becoming pretty inequitable.

Putting all that aside I'll be happy if this the last year the issue raises it's head.

Actually having done more research I have even less sympathy for the club position.

Player availability is controlled by regulation 9 (http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/27/42327_pdf.pdf). This came into effect at the start of 2009. The regulations relating to the June and November windows are the same (2nd, 3rd and 4th weekends of the month). As far as I can tell the same situation occurred in the November test series in 2009. In this case NZ, Australia and South Africa played on 7 November. The provincial championship finals South Africa was played the week before. The final in NZ was played the same day as the England test. I can't see how the blame can go to anyone else but the clubs, unless I've missed something (which I may have done, in which case I apologise in advance).

blackcanelion wrote:Actually having done more research I have even less sympathy for the club position.

It's not "the club position". In England, for instance, the RFU and the clubs are in accord. The IRFU also appealed to have the window recognized as it was intended.

Even today, you still hear the accusation that Northern unions habitually send weakened teams down south. This complaint seems a lot more hollow when New Zealand and Australia want to engineer the schedule to guarantee such an outcome. Only South Africa acted sensibly by agreeing to have the first Test against Wales on the 14th.

Rugby Fan wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Actually having done more research I have even less sympathy for the club position.

It's not "the club position". In England, for instance, the RFU and the clubs are in accord. The IRFU also appealed to have the window recognized as it was intended.

Even today, you still hear the accusation that Northern unions habitually send weakened teams down south. This complaint seems a lot more hollow when New Zealand and Australia want to engineer the schedule to guarantee such an outcome. Only South Africa acted sensibly by agreeing to move the first Test against Wales to the 14th.

As I pointed out above. This is the second tour this has happened on. It's predictable. It's in complete accord with the previous instance when the month changed mid weekend (i.e. October/November 2009). In that instance the 2nd weekend was deemed to be the 7th November 2009. The only difference is that in this instance it affects northern teams. They've had 5 years to avoid this.

South Africa's moved the dates. It doesn't follow that your argument is just. We aren't privy to the discussions involved between the unions. Even so, NZ and Australia should be within their rights to expect the same treatment as 6 nations unions 5 years ago. I'm not sure how expecting others to meet their obligations in exactly the same way they expected you to meet yours should constitute engineering.

You have completely fabricated this as a club v union issue. It isn't. It's a NH v SH thing. For one the RFU control the club fixtures for the domestic league. Second the Pro12, which is controlled by the unions involved, have their final on the same date as the premiership final. So this is something NH unions have decided to do (probably due to a delay in the season following the Lions). You say there is too much rugby and lay it at the feet of the clubs...well that also is controlled by the unions so again, not a club thing.

HammerofThunor wrote:You have completely fabricated this as a club v union issue. It isn't. It's a NH v SH thing. For one the RFU control the club fixtures for the domestic league. Second the Pro12, which is controlled by the unions involved, have their final on the same date as the premiership final. So this is something NH unions have decided to do (probably due to a delay in the season following the Lions). You say there is too much rugby and lay it at the feet of the clubs...well that also is controlled by the unions so again, not a club thing.

Fair enough. In that case I see it as a NH mismanagement issue. As I understand it, the November tests in 2009 were under the same regulations, so there shouldn't be any confusion. There shouldn't be any surprise that NZ or Australia might might require the rule to be applied consistently. I'm sorry if that comes across as a bit strong. It just seems to me that this has been portrayed in the British media as NZ/Australia bullying the NH. If it was that simple I'd argue the 6 nations teams would have put their foot down, with the support of SA and it would have been no contest. They've got the balance of power in the IRB and they have had plenty of time to dictate a result if they had chosen.

The NH season, both international and domestic, has been stable for many years. Pro12 introducing playoffs 5 or so years ago was the last expansion, which then matched the final of the english season. In the meantime, Super rugby has expanded, and trinations has become quad.

It is what it is, but fixture congestion is the problem, and it isn't NH that has been progressively adding to it.

So how does this affect the squads then:

1) May 17th - Jeff semis
Probably quite a few 1st or squad members involved.

2) May 20th - initial squad selection (25-27 players), flying out soon after, probably with U20 squad
Finalists will be known, so preperation for 1st test can begin. No Un20's in the senior team...though there are a few in the Saxons who could have played against the Baa baas. But the JWC is more important.

3) May 23rd,24th - Euro finals (presumably any HC and Amlin finalists not available for England)
Sarries and Leicester still in the Q/F's of HC
Bath, Glos, Quins, Wasps, Saints, Sale, still in Amlin cup Q/F's

4) May 31st - Jeff final, assume remaining squad fly out soon after


June 1st - Eng v Baa-Baas
Likely to be made up of 3/4/5th choice players, as a large squad will go to NZ and the U20's will take the likes of Scott Wilson etc who are Saxons.

June 2nd - JWC starts in NZ
June 7th - 1st test
June 14th - 2nd test
June 17th - Eng v Crusaders
June 21st - 3rd test

It also seems likely that there will be a 7th place Euro qualification playoff sometime after May 10th, which may or may not be 2 legged, and may affect availability of players..

I see it as a good way to test our squad. England have a large player pool - we'll use it now.

We need to find alternative options to the likes of Farrell,Wood and Lawes who are likely to be missing the first test.

George Ford was twiddling his thumbs for most of the 6 nations bar a 1 minute cameo vs Wales and a 10 minute one vs Italy. He'll get his chance vs NZ to prove what he can do.

Ditto a 2nd rower like Attwood. These players might sink but if they don't then they'll add some excellent options to the squad as a whole.

The absence of Tuilagi has led to the emergence of Burrell.

New Zealand are a ruthless side - they will exploit any weakness and test us like no other team.

We in England know our first team is pretty decent but we need to adapt to the absence of key players because that could happen in the RWC.

We need a 6 who can fill the shoes of Wood, a 7 who can step in for Robshaw.

Lancaster needs to prove he can utilise the bench properly.

There's plenty to learn even if England are likely to miss some key players for the 1st test.

Perhaps England should give some players like Farrell, the summer off, he's played rugby almost non stop for the last year or so.

I think your spot on Beshocked.

This summer is going to require a big use of our resources. We'll see what we have thats of the required quality.

I like SL's attitude- He has only said he wants to win every game. So lets not make excuses before hand to make out its ok to say get beat up bad once and come close losers twice..

Farrel has to go.

Imagine telling the lad we are resting you v NZ- He wont want that. Yes play ford for a game and a half or something. But we rarely ever play NZ- France play them twice as much.. Its a big deal going there and it inst a glorified bunch of friendlies.

mystiroakey I agree to an extent but Farrell is one of the only English players who went on the Lions tour who has stayed relatively injury free (okay he had to go off vs Leicester but that did not last long)

Geordiefalcon and blackcanelion have been talking about workload, Farrell's had a lot.

HC games, big AP games, internationals, lions tour.

Cole had a similar workload but he's crocked now.

Farrell also has a lot to come before the NZ tour - matches vs Quins,Leicester,Saints,Ulster stand out and that's before the playoffs which he would expect to feature in.

Look at Lions tour for English players. All have picked up an injury at some point during this season. Quite a few have been significant.

That's one thing that might happen from this tour. Tired and injured players next season.

We should have players central contracted.. International has to take presedent. If lads need to be rested they need to be rested from domestic fixtures.

Mystiroakey you'll get into murky water there. Cricket favours internationals over club/county hence the understandable central contracts. Not like football either which favours club over country.

Rugby Union sits halfway - respecting both the club and international game. It needs to stay that way. I think it's great that both are important. It's a real strength I think our sport has.

It's a tough balancing act of course but so far it's not going one way or the other.

I am a fan of all 3 sports equally. I don't really understand the "sitting in between mentality" .

You don't? Fine I will try and explain it.

Talking specifically about England. Starting with football.

Domestic football - Premier League, Championship etc takes precedence over international matches. Only need to look at the popularity of these matches compare to internationals. The sheer amount of club matches also point to this.

In between World cups and european championships there are a lack of meaningful internationals.

Let's be honest - do you as a football fan really care about the outcome of England vs San Marino for example?

Only need to look at the wording - in football they are called friendlies, in rugby they are tests.


In cricket it's the polar opposite - important England players are centrally contracted - the likes of the Ashes and series to the big cricket countries like SA and India take precedence. The likes of Cook,Trott,Broad rarely play for their counties/clubs if ever.

In rugby - the 6 nations is significant but so are the club competitions like the HC and AP.

You dont have to explain mate. As i have said I am a huge fan of all 3 and understand the systems..

Rugby is the system which is messy, as per this conudrum we are facing due to the international window either not being big enough, other domestic or regional leagues not adhering to it,

I am not going to get into what i think the best system is but I am a huge rugby international fan, a huge cricket international fan and a huge football fan- be that the domestic seasons of various leagues , the CL or the world cups, euro cups and qualifying. Friendlies really are only friendlies in Football.. Spain for example has been beaten by NI and south africa in recent years but have not lost a competitive tie in donkies years.

Our tour to NZ isnt a friendly- its a full on tour - which will be tarnished by the timing and neither club or international claiming the players effectively.

BS,

Its a bit more complex that that. In soccer there are people who only really follow internationals, but a much bigger number who only really follow club games ...and then a fair proportion who sit between.

In rugby there are roughly equal split between all 3 camps.

In terms of the importance given by the unions even that varies country to country. In England theres a pretty good club country balance, in France its more weighted toward the clubs ( as is support, giveing a "meh" etc) whereas the Rabo nations clearly have little regard for the domestic game.

That aside anyway these torus are competitive, or at least in theory anyway. Theres only two proper ones every 4 years, punctuated by world cups and lions tours. That makes them a BIG DEAL for most players in their careers. Its a 6 year cycle to get to go to NZ, most players careers wont let them go twice even if they become established test players. Having a 3 test series makes it more like cricket too where there is some attempt to make it meaningful beyond a one off game without being part of a specific tournament or cup.

That NH sides so rarely even get a win in NZ now makes it even bigger a deal in some ways.

Its a huge pity that for a second time in recent years the schedule has been screwed up to leave England massively depleted for part of a summer tour, and of course there was the "tour from hell" where so many players were made unavailable. And the last time England went to NZ (discounting the WC) it was devalued by Rob Andrews presence.

I agree Peter.

I think though, the international game is paramount in Rugby. It's clearly stated in the first 2 paragraphs of Regulation 9 (relating to player release). Unions have first rights. In terms of the windows clubs have effectively no rights.

In terms of the strength of the touring squad I wonder if more is being made of it than is necessary. Here are some thoughts.

1. Most of the team will probably arrive in NZ well before the test. Only those involved in the finals need actually be affected. Given the spread of the current squad it's not as bad as it might be.

2. Those involved in the final, can still be in NZ by Tuesday morning. This is doable. Super 15 teams do it every season.

3. The majority of the England squad actually has more preparation time than the NZ opposites. All the NZ teams play on the weekend of the 31st May. The All Blacks are unlikely to train before Monday/Tuesday. It's also the first game they've played since November.

In other words, I'm not sure it's as bleak as it first appears to English fans.

Two things;

Facts are one set of players (who play more games in a club driven environment) are going to be significantly fatigued in comparison to the other set of players (who compete within a Union driven competition).

And secondly, and far more interesting as far as I'm concerned, this tour will be a real test of Bombers selection qualities. To date the geologically slow 'selection by result of injury' approach has rendered limited success, success which is arguably more to do with the player riches available than to any Stewie master plan.

I do fear another tour from hell scenario.

What would be your squad and expectations king?

*Just seen your initial squad and it's probably what Lancaster will choose anyway barring the flankers of Garvey and Trayfoot.

And who would you have brought through faster? And when, and who would you have dropped?

Ive been massively critical of the direction Lancaster has been taking us with regards to attack. However this 6n has totally changed that. Maybe by fluke maybe intentional...but its happened.

Its going to be a big squad to NZ, a JWC squad (which will include several saxon members) then a squad for the Baa Baas game aswell.

This summer if anything should show us what we have at our disposal...

I think the only Saxon at JWC will be Scott Wilson, assuming Antony Watson will be playing with the big boys?

The squad for Baa-Baas will be interesting - I assume Jon Callard, the Saxons coach, will be in charge, but it'll be quite a ragtag selection. I should think there'll be ten or more players from the "6N" saxons who will be unavailable, either in NZ or prem final or perhaps the 7th place playoff. Plenty of opportunities for fringe players, perhaps even some 7's players.

You may be right about only Wilson...i thought there was more.

Either way, yes there are going to be fringe and young pretenders getting games somewhere...a good performance could do their chances very well...

Specifically:

2 - After Hartley theres a host of players but all have their "areas to work on".
Youngs, Ward, Buchanan, Webber, Gray, Jamie George etc.

3 - We know we have Cole and Wilson. But the rest are all very young - especially as TH's go.

6&7 After Wood and Robshaw...who is there who can really in come in at the required level?

10 - Who challenges Farrell

The next in line for 6 is going to be Clarke isn't it? Not popular due to his past thuggery but has the skills to be very good. Fraser is the one 7 who looks great every time I see him (between his injuries. Next up Wallace and Kvesic have something to prove for me.

I think a lot depends on Crofts recovery, or not.

Clark and Fraser are favourites to be in the Prem final, Kvesic is likely to be in NZ and Wallace could be in the 7th place game (unlikely, though). So, for the Baa-Baas, Ewers or Fearns at 6 (or 8) - when is Croft likely to recover? As a bolter, Jack Clifford - with the 7's in Tokyo this weekend, and my player of JWC last year, but not yet troubling Quins first team.

So little foundation to speculate on, we won't have much of an idea till after the prem semis on May 17th.

I was thinking longer term with croft.

It's quite possible, depending in who finalists are that they will try and shoehorn in someone like lawes or use vino pols an Morgan in the back row as a stop gap.
Or keep using Johnson, despite him not being a long term option.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:I was thinking longer term with croft.

It's quite possible, depending in who finalists are that they will try and shoehorn in someone like lawes or use vino pols an Morgan in the back row as a stop gap.
Or keep using Johnson, despite him not being a long term option.

  ...are you thinking of the wine this weekend already mate?? Can you translate   

Cant see Croft being on the tour. Or in any squad to be fair.

It would appear Clark, Haskell, Johnson, Fearns, Ewers, Dickinson, Kvesic, Wallace, are the options in the back row...

Id love to see our Mark Wilson get a shot maybe v the Baa Baas....and any chance of Welch or Saull being looked at?

I was thinking more of the Baa-Baas game, when the main squad will either be in NZ already, or in the prem final, or second leg of 7th place play-off if there is one (or in the Euro finals the week before.)

It will really test our depth, and give an inkling of who's on the fringes.

I forgot about Haskell - do you think there is a correlation between the reports of this 6N England camp being particularly happy and the absence of The Brand?

I just think haskell hasnt found the form we know he can play at.

Sorry for repeating myself...but for the Baa baas game we can do ALOT worse than Mark Wilson...he's Mr Consistency, and an excellent player. Only 24...

I haven't seen much of Wilson, or the Falcons - so rarely on TV and I missed the game at Sandy Park. What's his history?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Clark and Fraser are favourites to be in the Prem final, Kvesic is likely to be in NZ and Wallace could be in the 7th place game (unlikely, though). So, for the Baa-Baas, Ewers or Fearns at 6 (or 8) - when is Croft likely to recover? As a bolter, Jack Clifford - with the 7's in Tokyo this weekend, and my player of JWC last year, but not yet troubling Quins first team.

So little foundation to speculate on, we won't have much of an idea till after the prem semis on May 17th.

Clifford's been injured to be fair

Clifford has looked very good in his appearances though, but you'd expect that from the U20's captain.

His problem will be size, if he wants to ever play 8 for England then the coaches would need to change the backrow to accommodate him or change the gameplan to bring him in. He's very quick and a smart player but he couldn't do what Morgan or Billy do, not yet anyway.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Clark and Fraser are favourites to be in the Prem final, Kvesic is likely to be in NZ and Wallace could be in the 7th place game (unlikely, though). So, for the Baa-Baas, Ewers or Fearns at 6 (or 8) - when is Croft likely to recover? As a bolter, Jack Clifford - with the 7's in Tokyo this weekend, and my player of JWC last year, but not yet troubling Quins first team.

So little foundation to speculate on, we won't have much of an idea till after the prem semis on May 17th.

Clifford's been injured to be fair

Fit now, though, but as has been said off playing 7s. I think he's only played one first XV game this season, but he looked very good in it - his form was probably a factor in Tom Guest moving on to Irish at the end of the season (Easter keeps on truckin' and Clifford looks ready to step up).

Doesn't have as much outright power as Morgan or Vunipola, but he's very, very quick and has a step. It also looked to me that he personally pulled England back into it in the second half of the JWC final last year, when they were two tries down. Probably won't be a realistic option for 2015, but could be a very good player by 2019. The alarming thing is that I can see him having to wait his turn behind Bill & Ben for some time.

Poorfour wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Clark and Fraser are favourites to be in the Prem final, Kvesic is likely to be in NZ and Wallace could be in the 7th place game (unlikely, though). So, for the Baa-Baas, Ewers or Fearns at 6 (or 8) - when is Croft likely to recover? As a bolter, Jack Clifford - with the 7's in Tokyo this weekend, and my player of JWC last year, but not yet troubling Quins first team.

So little foundation to speculate on, we won't have much of an idea till after the prem semis on May 17th.

Clifford's been injured to be fair

Fit now, though, but as has been said off playing 7s. I think he's only played one first XV game this season, but he looked very good in it - his form was probably a factor in Tom Guest moving on to Irish at the end of the season (Easter keeps on truckin' and Clifford looks ready to step up).

Doesn't have as much outright power as Morgan or Vunipola, but he's very, very quick and has a step. It also looked to me that he personally pulled England back into it in the second half of the JWC final last year, when they were two tries down. Probably won't be a realistic option for 2015, but could be a very good player by 2019. The alarming thing is that I can see him having to wait his turn behind Bill & Ben for some time.

Yea I have to say his leadership seemed to shine through in that second half and the lad speaks extremely well. Very competitive in the youth backrows with Clifford, Wallace, Trayfoot, Sam Jones and a host of others impressing for the U20s.

What is striking though is that whilst we seem to play far better with a big ball carrying 8 there doesn't seem to be any of those coming through the junior ranks. As you say Clifford is in the mould of Guest/Narraway.

Ewers is still only very young of course. But even the likes of young Conlon at Exeter is more of a 6/7 as I understand it.

As far as the Barbarians game i'd like to see Fearns at 6 if he's fit and Ewers at 8.

Poorfour wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Clark and Fraser are favourites to be in the Prem final, Kvesic is likely to be in NZ and Wallace could be in the 7th place game (unlikely, though). So, for the Baa-Baas, Ewers or Fearns at 6 (or 8) - when is Croft likely to recover? As a bolter, Jack Clifford - with the 7's in Tokyo this weekend, and my player of JWC last year, but not yet troubling Quins first team.

So little foundation to speculate on, we won't have much of an idea till after the prem semis on May 17th.

Clifford's been injured to be fair

Fit now, though, but as has been said off playing 7s. I think he's only played one first XV game this season, but he looked very good in it - his form was probably a factor in Tom Guest moving on to Irish at the end of the season (Easter keeps on truckin' and Clifford looks ready to step up).

Doesn't have as much outright power as Morgan or Vunipola, but he's very, very quick and has a step. It also looked to me that he personally pulled England back into it in the second half of the JWC final last year, when they were two tries down. Probably won't be a realistic option for 2015, but could be a very good player by 2019. The alarming thing is that I can see him having to wait his turn behind Bill & Ben for some time.

Think he started once but has come off the bench at least once too. He looks very good and we'll need him
To be as we are losing Guest.

The leadership in the backrow with Robshaw, Wallace, Easter and Clifford on the bench is impressive!

England will need to win 2-1 at least in order for Lancaster to meet his stated objectives.

Suggesting this might be impossible is merely deliberately lowering expectation to create a pre-canned loss coping mechanism.

i think SL will be happy enough with a 1-2 and then a win in Eng.

But he really is giving it the old NZ philosophy- he doesn't want to lose a game mate.

Be worried GE be Very worried.

Mystri. I can safely assert the outcome will be what it is regardless of my state of mental anxiety.

England at full strength look top class and have built a lot of depth.

Players like Lawes, launchbury, Hartley, Tuilagi and vunipola would rival their opposite numbers.

I think England are more cohesive in the tight, possibly equal in the lineout and the breakdown will depend on the interpretation of whatever ref we get - could go either way.

I think NZ have an advantage in the back three and at 9/10 assuming Cruden and A. Smith are available and selected.

Should be a good series and a England series win would be both historic and deserved.

A lot will ride on the fitness, form and injury status of NZ's back row.

Will Kaino storm back at 6? Will McCaw and cane recover and will read stay injury free?

You have the advantage- you are at home, you are the better rugby playing team. You have better players overall.

Really not sure about either scrum or line out to be honest- Both are a bit suspect IMO.

But i have a feeling your players are going to be bang up for it. Look I just cant wait to test ourselves against you lot. I would even go as far as to state if an England world cup game is on at the same time(i cant work out if that is possible or not- it probally isnt being in completely different time zones). I would have the rugby on my 50 inch and the football on my 30 inch monitor!! That is how exited i am about this tour

We'll find out about Cane this weekend, hes starting against the Force for the Chiefs.

The thing about this tour is like clockwork the temperature plummets on June 1st and we don't get very good starts.

Last year the French had several players out for the same reason first test and they had their best result of the 3.

One loss from 3 wouldnt be a surprise where 2 or 3 would be based on the relative merits of both sides. But Lancaster's a shrewd character and of any side he's taken more of a leaf out of the AB book than anyone else.

Danny Care's confidence looks good and building around him more than Farrell might go well. He reminds me of Byron Kelleher a little.

I suppose the bottom line is under Hansen England remains his only loss so he wont want to add anymore to that list.