State of the team: England

First topic message reminder :

What are your thoughts on where we are as a team at the end of the 6 nations.

I believe we are a lot better at creating chances which is certainly an improvement on last year, i think this is due to the half back partnership between B. Youngs and Ford. B. Youngs seems to have found his form again. For me Ford is miles ahead of Farrell at the moment, he improves our attacking play so much more than him. His work with his club mate Joseph is working well too. Talking of Joseph, he's had a really good six nations and probably one of our best players.

Still not sure why Care isnt in the match day squad, not sure what Wigglesworth brings other than being a different type of player to B. Youngs. What has been bit of an issue this year (i can't believe im about to say this about an england team) is our scrum. It hasn't been as powerful as years gone by, is that a result of our forwards being told to up their work rate around the park and being tied at scrum time?

This year we have been creating chances but not finishing them off, we also seem to have a fair few handling errors that needs stamping out. How are we going to do this? Can we? Is it just the players need some more game time with each other?

What are anyone elses thoughts on where we're at?

I can't agree LT, I think he's a poor scrum half. He's absolutley electric but is slow getting the ball away and then when he does it's often poor. His kicking is decent but I generally think he's a poor scrum half.

Simpson offers more like for like with Youngs as first choice and seems to fit the definition of a impact sub.  Wrigglesworth seems to be a very different player.  On Saturday when Youngs was brought off (man of the match), Simpson might have been a better replacement.

I agree he has played well this season.

Wigglesworth's game management & general awareness is top notch, these are often underrated values.

Simpson is very fast but a bit blinkered in his play. People tend to be impressed with him as he makes lots of breaks but he's a very selfish player. I'd have 5/6 scrum hslfs ahead of him for England.

Wigglesworth reminds me of the guys used as Closing Pitchers/Quarterbacks in American sports. The people who come on and close out a game. What he isn't is someone who will come on and turn a losing game into a winning one. He would have been perfect bench material for the 2003 team.

I like Wigglesworth a lot, I think he gets a bad rep.

I guess for me I wonder if any opposition fans are worried when they see Wigglesworth coming on? I certainly wouldn't be

Its perfectly feasible to close out a game by making a break and getting into opposition territory, just as well as a couple of good box kicks

I wonder if Danny Care had been coming on, or if Youngs had stayed on, we would have scored the try in the last 5 mins?

Care would be the obvious option but he's not fancied. Bringing Simpson on scares the life out of me never mind the opposition.

Wigglesworth offers a snappy pass and a good kicking game. He's done well off the bench this 6N. What he doesn't add is a running threat which was only really a problem vs France.

Incidentally Youngs couldn't have stayed on against France he'd given everything by the point he was subbed. Two tries, creating two more and a try saving cover tackle clearly took it out of him. Really we need Danny Care to work on his kicking game and come back into form.

Why would you ever want to close a game out?

Surely dominating possession and scoring more points is a better option (what Simpson gives you) then kicking the ball away and giving the opposition loads of chances to score (the Wigglesworth option).

Why wouldn't you want to close a game out?

7pts up with 10mins to go against the AB's in the WC final....I certainly wouldn't want "can't pass" Simpson on!

yappysnap wrote:Why would you ever want to close a game out?

Surely dominating possession and scoring more points is a better option (what Simpson gives you) then kicking the ball away and giving the opposition loads of chances to score (the Wigglesworth option).

That is disrespectful to Wiggy.

Closing games out is great, I would love to be able to do that against the best teams. However this current team is far more likely to be chasing a score to win against those sides, rather than defending a lead, entering the last 5 minutes.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Why wouldn't you want to close a game out?

7pts up with 10mins to go against the AB's in the WC final....I certainly wouldn't want "can't pass" Simpson on!

While that is disrespectful to Simmo. Now Warren Fury - that is a scrum half who cannot pass, run, kick. Hell how is he even now still on the books of a Prem team

Don't ask me LT, he's had one good game in 3 years!

Ironically, Fury has better basics than Simpson for me by quite a distance but has nowhere near the gas.

I honestly can't think of a starting scrum half with a worse pass/slower service than Simpson in the AP.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Why wouldn't you want to close a game out?

7pts up with 10mins to go against the AB's in the WC final....I certainly wouldn't want "can't pass" Simpson on!

Errmm Simpson's passing this season has been very good.

What I'm saying is that if you're leading, then why heap the pressure on yourselves by changing your gameplan to kick and defend? Especially when that gameplan has done so well at getting you in front anyway.

7pts up with 10mins to go against the AB's in the WC final i'd much rather be in their 22 attacking then in our 22 defending!

Just as a side point, and it doesn't prove that much of itself but Wasps are 6th in the league with 7 tbp's (most in the league), 505 points scored (2nd most in the league) and a margin of +138 (5th best in the league).

Now that's not all down to Simpson, but they wouldn't have that many points, tries and bp's if not for some good passing from 9.

Finaly here's a picture of him passing

More generally I am a bit confused by the choice of subs - are the names pulled from a hat on the Thursday morning?  I would prefer my subs to have an impact and cause concern for the opposition.  I do take it there are times for a more careful approach but against the better teams recently we see to have been behind on points and not ahead.

I am in no way arguing that Wrigglesworth is a bad player just that Simpson would bring more impact and that he has played well this season with Wasps.

Or if Owens had spotted 3 French players deliberately collapsing the rolling maul and had given the penalty the other way....

Given how the team have played in this years 6ns. Is the likes of Chris Ashton, Johnny May, Danny Care,  actualy done (kicked out of the England team forever) Or are they still in with a chance?

Had Danny Care played France we would have scored another two tries. He is electric in those kind of open games. Youngs was there to provide a steady box kick not what was needed last Saturday.

englandglory4ever wrote:Had Danny Care played France we would have scored another two tries. He is electric in those kind of open games. Youngs was there to provide a steady box kick not what was needed last Saturday.

actually youngs was amazing in open play on saturday. was very like care at his best actually. scored two and had a hand in a couple more.

so dont think danny care would have made any difference

had lawes/launch been available all series, yes

had brown been available against ireland, yes

had hartley not been told to tone it down by lancaster, yes

majesticimperialman wrote:Given how the team have played in this years 6ns. Is the likes of Chris Ashton, Johnny May, Danny Care,  actualy done (kicked out of the England team forever) Or are they still in with a chance?

I expect Care will come back into the squad. May's versatility should also serve him well in a RWC squad.

I saw a Lancaster interview earlier in which he states it's unfair to presume Corbs will remain 3rd choice as well. It's a statement I'm not to pleased with to be honest, given how well Marler has played for a sustained period he's definitely first choice now. After that I think Mako showed up well from the bench and has improved his scrummaging a lot. Corbs on the other hand is yet to really prove his scrummaging prowess under the new scrum laws due to how regularly he's been out for!

From the guys who didn't feature during the Six Nations due to injury I expect Farrell, Launchbury and Morgan will definitely return if fit enough to prove themselves in the warm-up games.

As well as Tuilagi and Barritt who will both in the world cup squad without doubt.

Cheers Hammer, I started writing a separate paragraph on the centres then deleted it because I'm just covering old ground and don't really know what I think the answer might be! Hence the exclusion of Tuilagi and Barritt who will definitely be there if fit, alongside Joseph. If I had to make a prediction now I'd say Twelvetrees will be the 4th centre as he 'could' offer more of a playmaker and a point of difference to the others.

The 'fourth' centre will be Farrell in my opinion, if he's not starting then he'll be covering 10 and centre with, I think Lancaster will go with Barritt at 12, Joseph at 13 and Tuilagi at 14, with Watson also on the bench gives a lot of options for change during the game.

englandglory4ever wrote:Had Danny Care played France we would have scored another two tries. He is electric in those kind of open games. Youngs was there to provide a steady box kick not what was needed last Saturday.

Did you actually watch the game?

LondonTiger wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Had Danny Care played France we would have scored another two tries. He is electric in those kind of open games. Youngs was there to provide a steady box kick not what was needed last Saturday.

Did you actually watch the game?

Lol, man of the match was there to provide a steady box kick lol

LondonTiger wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:
Lancaster abeit Farrell are poor selectors with a curious bias for Saracen squad members.

Complete and utter tripe. There is no bias towards selecting Sarries players. The players selected have performed well in the AP and ECC and are in a team doing well in both.

Really, you care to offer any examples of these international playing successes, and if you say Farrell and Barritt then I'll appreciate the level by which you judge ability.

Lions aren t good enough

The real question has been put by Mallett; will England continue from where they left off i.e. putting 50 on France or will they revert to a conservative style again.
One of the reasons the ABs became quite such a force was that you could always score against them but no matter how many you scored they would score double that. Point is, ambitious rugby pays off, yes you'll ship points but Saturday showed England have much more potential than they have been allowed to realize under Lancaster.
IMO they will revert to conservatism because Pool A may well come down to PD. I expect them to put cricket scores on Uruguay and Fiji but the other games are likely to be so tight that they will revert to type.

Type being what?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Why wouldn't you want to close a game out?

7pts up with 10mins to go against the AB's in the WC final....I certainly wouldn't want "can't pass" Simpson on!

7pts with 10mins to go is the sort of situation the ABs eat for pre-breakfast. Hell, I'd put money on them with less than 5mins. If you're basing your hopes on closing the game out you could have Jesus on playing the closer role and you'd still be screwed. Simpson may not be the man to do it but if you're not holding onto the ball and adding to the scoreline in that scenario you can pretty much guarantee the ABs will.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The 'fourth' centre will be Farrell in my opinion, if he's not starting then he'll be covering 10 and centre with, I think Lancaster will go with Barritt at 12, Joseph at 13 and Tuilagi at 14, with Watson also on the bench gives a lot of options for change during the game.

I don't think Tuilagi will be put on the wing again after the second test in NZ.

Also if you feel Manu will be there as a wing you need another centre anyway!

If Manu isn't at 12 he'll be on the bench with Farrell I feel. That way Joseph could shift to wing and Nowell/Watson could cover full back in case of injury. Below is what I'd predict Bomber is looking at heading into the WC:

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

9.Youngs
10.Ford

11.Nowell
12.Tuilagi or Barritt
13.Joseph
14.Watson
15.Brown

16.Youngs
17.Corbs
18.Wilson
19.Parling
20.Morgan
21.Care
22.Farrell
23.Barritt or Tuilagi

kingelderfield wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:
Lancaster abeit Farrell are poor selectors with a curious bias for Saracen squad members.

Complete and utter tripe. There is no bias towards selecting Sarries players. The players selected have performed well in the AP and ECC and are in a team doing well in both.

Really, you care to offer any examples of these international playing successes, and if you say Farrell and Barritt then I'll appreciate the level by which you judge ability.

WTF has that got to do with the comment I pulled you up on. You state there is a bias to selecting Sarries players. In what way. the Sarries guys, as I state, were playing well in a team that is at the business end of the AP and the ECC. They are a team that last year made the finals of both. (well HEC then). Why should they not have players selected for England?

Owen Farrell - had a very good first season in 2012, plenty of pundits raving. Had a very good 2013, was part of a team that was blown away by Wales, selected for the Lions and played really well for them. Did ok in 2014 6Ns - should not have been selected for the AIs but that was where Lancasters one major selectorial weakness came to play. He is at times over loyal.

Mako Vunipola - had hardly played for Sarries when selected (much like Tom Youngs at same time), controversial choice but ended the season on the Lions tour - seems like a pretty good choice.

George Kruis - 6th choice lock, played well enough, left out when the injured returned.

Wigglesworth - not everyone's cup of tea. In very good form in AP. Plenty of pundits wanted him to be brought into the starting lineup post Dublin.

Charlie Hodgson - stop gap measure at the start of Bomber's reign. won us a couple of matches. Left out when decided they no longer needed the safety blanket.

Brad Barritt - solid no nonsense player. Has performed more consistently at 12 than any other English centre. Late call up for the lions.

Dave Strettle - really unlucky not to have had more caps for England Jettisoned by Bomber to try and give tyros a chance to shine (since then we have seen plenty of Wingers come and go, injuries often an issue)

Alex Goode - a really talented player who is probably just too pedestrian for international rugby. Was one of our better players in 2013 6Ns and in this years match in Dublin.


And finally

Chris Ashton - was retained when Bomber started. Dropped. Played really well for Sarries in Europe. Scoring tries for fun. given another go. Dropped.

I cannot see any pro Sarries bias in those selections.


Hell it would be easier to argue a pro-saints bias in selection. Corbisiero being given preferential treatment, Hartley given how many second chances? Lawes/Wood brought back into the teams when not match fit. Burrell retained. Except, they are the best team in England - so of course they have players selected.

yappysnap wrote:Finaly here's a picture of him passing

That pass goes straight to the floor Yappy

nth wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Why wouldn't you want to close a game out?

7pts up with 10mins to go against the AB's in the WC final....I certainly wouldn't want "can't pass" Simpson on!

7pts with 10mins to go is the sort of situation the ABs eat for pre-breakfast.  Hell, I'd put money on them with less than 5mins.  If you're basing your hopes on closing the game out you could have Jesus on playing the closer role and you'd still be screwed.  Simpson may not be the man to do it but if you're not holding onto the ball and adding to the scoreline in that scenario you can pretty much guarantee the ABs will.

I wouldn't trust Simpson to hold onto the ball, he's awful at the basics, game management etc. holding onto the ball isn't making breaks all the time.

Simpson is a long way from the 2nd best scrum half in England.

Re the Wigglesworth question. It's true he doesn't offer the same running threat as Care or Youngs, but he's a very good, well-rounded SH, who does pretty much everything well (heck, he even provided pretty much England's only line break against Ireland didn't he?). It was noticeable that for all England's skill ball in hand on Saturday, the only time they kicked and competed for the ball (apart from Ford's chip over the top for Joseph) was from a Wigglesworth box kick. He really is very very good at that part of the game. Given how poor England's kicking from hand has generally been this 6N (with the exception of the Wales game, where they were actually very good), I'm not sure that's something we should ignore...

Sure, he may not be the ideal guy to bring on when chasing the game, but I'm not entirely sure you can or should have a bench comprised entirely of game-breakers. As pointed out, there are times when you want to close a game out. Re his substitution on Saturday, Youngs was pretty much cooked. He was blowing very heavily after the break for the Ford try (I think) already, and would probably have been subbed sooner had he not been having such a stormer. Simply put, he'd run himself to a standstill (which is understandable in the context, obviously). I actually think Lancaster's subs on Saturday were mostly good calls made at the right time.

SH is the one back position that I feel should always be replaced. As back row now pick and choose which bereakdowns to attend, the SH probably covers the most ground in a game.

Thus you have to choose what sort of SH you want on the bench very carefully.

I suspect Lancaster thinks of 9 & 10 as a unit that needs to be balanced.

Youngs / Ford is a sniper / creator combination - conventional pretty much everywhere except England

Wigglesworth / Cipriani (not that they ever really got on in that configuration) is if anything a more extreme version of that template.

Care / Farrell is more of a French petit general model, with scrum half acting as the creative pivot. That combination played very well last year, though it struggled in the autumn with Farrell injured and Care's form a bit indifferent.

My guess is that when Farrell is back and fit, Lancaster will want to pair him with Care

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

nth wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Why wouldn't you want to close a game out?

7pts up with 10mins to go against the AB's in the WC final....I certainly wouldn't want "can't pass" Simpson on!

7pts with 10mins to go is the sort of situation the ABs eat for pre-breakfast.  Hell, I'd put money on them with less than 5mins.  If you're basing your hopes on closing the game out you could have Jesus on playing the closer role and you'd still be screwed.  Simpson may not be the man to do it but if you're not holding onto the ball and adding to the scoreline in that scenario you can pretty much guarantee the ABs will.

I wouldn't trust Simpson to hold onto the ball, he's awful at the basics, game management etc. holding onto the ball isn't making breaks all the time.

Simpson is a long way from the 2nd best scrum half in England.

You really don't like Simpson do you?

Although I would agree he probably isn't England 'material' given the competition for the place, he certainly isn't as bad as you are making out. By your rationale, he isn't good enough to be playing amateur rugby, let alone AP rugby. Which, is clearly nonsense, his contribution to Wasps' (so far) successful season has been notable.

Londontiger well said.


An in form Care is a great asset but he's not in form.



To be honest king carlos I feel that with Barritt you either start him or don't have him in the 23 at all. Manu suits the bench well because he can make a huge impact.

I should add that Wigglesworth got man of the match vs Wasps not too long ago - winning his head to head battle with Simpson.

tend to agree with beshocked there. If Barritt plays it should be as a starter. In an ideal world you'd want to try to fit both Joseph and Tuilagi into the starting line-up, but not really sure how that works, given I see them both as pretty much out and out OCs, so you're probably looking at one of them on the bench. You could conceivably go with either TBH, as they both offer great impact in different ways, but I think Joseph's form in the 6N has earned him first crack at the starting spot. Also I love the idea of Tuilagi coming on for 20 minutes when defenders are getting tired.

Simpson offers a better running game than Wigglesworth, but that's it. I'd pick Wigglesworth over him every time, simply does the SH basics much better. I'm actually quite keen to see how Dan Robson gets on at Wasps. I like the look of him, and if he can get ahead of Simpson there he could be one to watch out for in the future.

Can people please tell me...how many times has Manu played 12 and was he effective or "ok" . Is it a position he will move to for the Tigers?

If not then bench him as an impact sub for Joseph.

The other question of course is will he be fit? He seems to be permanently injured...ala Corbs.

Also, will Launchbury or Slater make it back to full match fitness in time.

Manu started as a 12 at junior level and first appearance for Tigers was there. Probably only played a handfull of games for Tigers at 12 though - including back to back matches with Clermont a few years ago.

Add in two caps for England at 12 in SA - with JJ at 13, and one appearance inside BOD - it is not a huge set of games.

I would like to see him tried there for Tigers if he is back before the end of the season, - but would he be more destructive for us there?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Can people please tell me...how many times has Manu played 12 and was he effective or "ok" . Is it a position he will move to for the Tigers?

If not then bench him as an impact sub for Joseph.

The other question of course is will he be fit? He seems to be permanently injured...ala Corbs.

Also, will Launchbury or Slater make it back to full match fitness in time.

When did he last play for England? Obviously given Lancaster brought him to Dublin he is going to get picked for the WC but is that a risk?

Just checked it. He played on the NZ tour last year but only played 1 game in last years 6n and missed all November tests last year and all this years 6 nations. Bit of a risk?

He has actually never played a full 6 nations campaign.

How about this 23 if it's in form?

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

9.Youngs
10.Ford
11.Nowell
12.Barritt
13.Joseph
14.Watson
15.Brown

16.Vunipola
17.Youngs
18.Wilson
19.Parling
20.Wood
21.Care
22.Farrell
23.Tuilagi

It's been mentioned by others - I wouldn't mind seeing Billy tried at 6 - it gives us two ball carriers in the backrow.

I would like to see him tried there for Tigers if he is back before the end of the season, - but would he be more destructive for us there?

Well that's the question...it wouldn't hurt to have a go in the warm up games...IF he is fit.

Wot ? ok Manu.

beshocked wrote:How about this 23 if it's in form?

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

9.Youngs
10.Ford
11.Nowell
12.Barritt
13.Joseph
14.Watson
15.Brown

16.Vunipola
17.Youngs
18.Wilson
19.Parling
20.Wood
21.Care
22.Farrell
23.Tuilagi

It's been mentioned by others - I wouldn't mind seeing Billy tried at 6 - it gives us two ball carriers in the backrow.

Ive mentioned that before Beschocked. Biilly has an excellent workrate (Jaques Burger said he was one the hardest workers in the Sarries team) and he would give you ridiculous carrying with Ben Morgan.

We may lose out in the lineout - though not hugely as Haskell doesn't offer a huge amount at the moment, but it does rely on Launchbury being fit...and that's a big ???

Also will Ben Morgan be fit?

Launchbury hping to play for Wasps by end of april