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?

It's called double standards no 7 & 1/2......

Unproven in rugby union at international level just like Kitchener and Slater.

Burgess has only had one game as a 6.

Sgt Pooly "better" - what's that based on exactly? Experience? Game time? Ability? Potential?

Potato, potato. Shame that doesn't work written down. You say double standards, I say judging each case on it's merits. Itoje isn't ready for England in my opinion, he's still being talked of as a 2nd row or 6, has real qualities but a lot of learning to be done. He's also up against a selection of very good 2nd rows with more experience and more mature physcially.

Burgess has had 1 game at 6 and I think I saw enough of him to expect him to thrive in the position. He is now dependant on getting a run there and continuing what he did against Newcastle. The position more naturally brings out his best qualities, tackling, carrying and he was excellent at rucks. He's also proved albeit in the other sport that these qualities are brilliant, so he's a different case.

I don't think it's double standards to say a 20 year starting out isn't in the exact same boat as someone who's 26 made it to the very top of a similar sport who's looking to adapt much more than learn.

Plus 6 is more open given the other options than 2nd row where we're pretty stacked.

Current abilty Beshocked, obviously.

You can't take players to a WC based on potential. Good luck finding anyone bar yourself who thinks Itoje is currently a better player than Slater, Kitchener etc (who are around 6/7th choice). Your Sarries bias is back I see

Good debate guys...

Now for my next bit of work....

Alex Goode should be the England fb...discuss

Have a good weekend gentlemen.

As long as you don't mean the England rugby union international team full back, he can be any kind of FB he so chooses!

GeordieFalcon wrote:Good debate guys...

Now for my next bit of work....

Alex Goode should be the England fb...discuss

Have a good weekend gentlemen.

Does "fb" stand for football? If so I heartily agree.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Current abilty Beshocked, obviously.

You can't take players to a WC based on potential. Good luck finding anyone bar yourself who thinks Itoje is currently a better player than Slater, Kitchener etc (who are around 6/7th choice). Your Sarries bias is back I see

If he can get fit I expect Slater will rapidly jump above sixth or seventh choice.

During the 6 Nations when our 2nd row partnership looked to be struggling with Lawes and Parling unavailable it was quite telling IMO that Slater was brought into the squad in a non playing capacity along with Tuilagi and Launchbury.

I feel that Bomber and Cockers may have realised that the option of some more bulk in the boiler room could be very useful in a RWC squad and with Attwood struggling to deliver consistently on promise they wanted to keep Slater close to the set-up.

Sarries are starting Itoje at blindside against Clermont with Kelly Brown and Jackson Wray on the bench.

If ever there was a game for him to put his hand up as a bolter, and make a few of us from this thread look silly, it's a ECC semi-final away to Clermont with Julien Bonnaire as your opposite number.

Also a good test of Makos scrummaging up against Kirakashvili.

A big opportunity for Jamie George to make a statement against Kayser.

Plus Goode vs Abendanon and a test of Ashtons defence against Nalaga.

All in all it will be an interesting day of rugby!

True king Carlos.

Hopefully the Sarries guys can make a positive impact.

Sgt pooly Itoje will get his opportunity tomorrow to make a real statement. Let's see how he does.

Not at lock.

So what? He's still rated enough to start against one of the best sides in Europe.

To be in the mix 3 things you need - game time, good form and to stay fit.

We will see how he does. Not many tougher games to prove oneself!

If he fails we can put it down to youth and inexperience but if he flourishes then he could well put down a serious challenge.

Well you ve gone for a big side and he s certainly that as a 6. You see him going to the wc as that a lock or a bit of both?

The problem with getting any "bolters" into the final England squad of 31 is as
follows: -

The squad can be seen to contain three distinct groups, the starting XV, the
remaining eight bench members of the match day squad (giving 23 players in total),
and a remaining group of eight players which could be considered injury substitutes.

On the bench, there would be three front-row replacements, and then probably a
second rower, back rower, scrum-half and fly-half replacement and finally one
utility back.

In the injury substitutes group (again 8) would probably be three front-row forwards
perhaps a further scrum-half and fly-half replacement.  This then leaves ONLY three
more players.  If the utility back is added back in, then there are only four
players to cover the second row/back row/centres/wings/ and full-back.

From the above this may mean, one additional second rower, one additional back rower
and two players to cover centre/wing/fullback (one of whom would probably be the
utility back in the match day squad of 23).

So summarizing, the squad based on the above could be:

9 front-rowers
4 second rowers
5 back rowers

TOTAL 18 forwards

6 scrum-halfs and fly-halfs (3 of each)
3 centres
3 wings (one of who could cover full-back).
1 full back

TOTAL 13 backs

Obviously there are different ways of "dicing and slicing" the above, but things are
very tight.

Utility players have a value versus a true specialize.  For example, Simpson could
be the third-choice scrum-half but could play on the wing in emergency.  Farrell can
cover inside centre, and potentially Slade could cover both inside and outside
centre (at a pinch).

Referring back the to the back-row argument. If everyone was fit Vunipola, Morgan,
Roshaw and Wood/Haskell choosen in the match day squad with Haskell/Wood as the 5th
back rower.

So little room for Itoje or Ewers or even Easter.


The squad limit of 31 makes this a quart in pint-pot puzzle.  Unfortunately this has
two possible consequences: - injury might have any undue impact on results because
squads are so small and a full range of substitutes is not possible; Secondly in
very few squads will there be any young up and coming players.  They will be filled
with the tried and tested and utility players.

So the World cup is perhaps not the place to see tomorrow's stars.


Just to illustrate this injury conundrum.  If for example ONLY two scrum-halves were
selected (instead of three), and your best scrum-half was injured but would only be
out for a short time, but would miss an important match.  Does the coach replace the
injured player? Which means he is lost for all remaining matches or does the coach
try to cobble together a replacement and hope?

If the match was readily winnable then the latter option might work.  If the match
was more testing, then a proper scrum-half would be needed.

This conundrum can be applied to all positions.

So very hard to fit any bolters into the final squad, in fact very hard to fit in
existing players.

A final example at centre, during the 6N's Joseph, Burrell and Twelvestrees were
used with Manu and Barritt injured.  If everyone was fit, the three selected centres
may be Joseph, Manu and Barritt which would leave out two of the centres who did
play.


Some leeway might be achieved for example by picking only 5 props, one of which
could cover both TH & LH. The fourth lock perhaps could also be a backrower or vice
versa.  However all these subterfuges carry a price with not having your best
players available.

The 31 squad is a major problem and limitation.  Luck to see it increased to 36 (or
beyond).

cb wrote:So summarizing, the squad based on the above could be:

9 front-rowers
4 second rowers
5 back rowers

TOTAL 18 forwards

6 scrum-halfs and fly-halves (3 of each)
3 centres
3 wings (one of who could cover full-back).
1 full back

TOTAL 13 backs

Obviously there are different ways of "dicing and slicing" the above, but things are
very tight.

Not many teams selected three specialist fly halves at the last World Cup. Most selected two, and had another player or two in the squad who could handle the role. Mind you, in 2007, we had five: Wilkinson, Barkley and Flood as specialists with Catt and Andy Farrell as centres. Brian Ashton even initially named Farrell at flyhalf for one match. Perhaps that's why we went to the other extreme and only selected two specialists in 2011.

The only way I can see Lancaster naming three fly-halves is if he selects Farrell as a centre.

Hi Rugby fan,

Still a conundrum.  If only two fly-halves (perhaps to have four centres or whatever) and one gets injured, and your next match is against Australia. What do you do?

Obviously originally trying to mix and match within the very tight constraints might help.

But there is probably not a right answer, just hoping to luck.

cb wrote:Hi Rugby fan,

Still a conundrum.  If only two fly-halves (perhaps to have four centres or whatever) and one gets injured, and your next match is against Australia. What do you do?

Obviously originally trying to mix and match within the very tight constraints might help.

But there is probably not a right answer, just hoping to luck.

That's one reason Lancaster has persisted with Alex Goode and Twelvetrees. Both can make a go of it at 10, as well as taking goal kicks.

The tricky thing is that they may not be good enough at their primary role to warrant a place in the squad. However, none of our other centre and full back options can play ten and kick goals except the uncapped Henry Slade. Even Martin Johnson had Delon Armitage as another kicker in his World Cup squad on top of Wilkinson and Flood, so I'd be surprised, and a bit concerned, if we only had two this year.

If Farrell was fit and showing some form in practice he will undoubtedly be selected.

farrell actually made a pretty decent 20 minutes cameo for sarries today vs clermont. he looked hungry, aggressive and carried and tackled well.

he will be in the RWC squad no doubt. george ford is clearly now number 1 but hes only a smallish fella after all. and there are potentially 7 matches to win fingers crossed.

quinsforever wrote:farrell actually made a pretty decent 20 minutes cameo for sarries today vs clermont. he looked hungry, aggressive and carried and tackled well.

3 carries for 6 metres, 2 tackles made, 1 missed according top official stats.

Farrell will be in the WC squad, and has enough credit in the bank to deserve selectiomn - even if he fails to regain top form before the end of the season.

Farrell offers a balance / contrast to Ford if the going is getting tough or for particular opposition.

And he can cover centre if required.

Barritt was his usual combative self today let's see how Twelvetrees performs...

Steve James thinks two players will be named as fly halves.

Thirty-one appears to be the magic number. For it is on Aug 31 that Lancaster has to name a 31‑man squad. It will be 31 this year as opposed to 30 in 2011 for the simple reason that match-day squads, with two props now required on the bench, comprise 23 compared to 22 back then.

Before a 45-man training squad will be announced next month, with another squad to play the Barbarians on May 31 revealed at the same time (probably with no players overlapping the two squads), then five weeks of training, three at Pennyhill Park and two in Denver, before there is some paring down for two Tests against France in August. Then the 31-man squad will be named before a final warm-up Test against Ireland on Sept 5.

It appears that the 31 will comprise 17 forwards and 14 backs. Up front they will pick five props, three hookers, four locks and five back-rowers. Behind, they will go for three scrum-halves, two fly-halves, four centres and five back-three players.

He thinks Barritt, Tuilagi, Joseph and Slade will be the centres, while Farrell and Ford take 10 duties.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11547390/England-head-coach-Stuart-Lancaster-will-snub-Steffon-Armitage-for-Rugby-World-Cup-squad-and-rightly-so.html

imo, way too early to say who the 31 players will be. totally depends on the remaining AP games, and how players develop in training. plus how those recovering from injury perform get back up to match fitness.

i reckon burgess will be in the 31. in the backrow.

quinsforever wrote:imo, way too early to say who the 31 players will be. totally depends on the remaining AP games, and how players develop in training. plus how those recovering from injury perform get back up to match fitness.

i reckon burgess will be in the 31. in the backrow.

There's a long way to go yet but it's very likely that Lancaster has sat down on a few occasions and drawn up a possible list of 31, where he's played with the possible permutations offered by different mixes of skills.

It's illuminating to think of who might be in the frame now because it raises the question of who a player has to displace to get into consideration. For instance, is Sam Burgess up against someone like Henry Slade or James Haskell? I think some of Lancaster's selections may be contingent on other players being fit and available. If Manu doesn't make it, I wouldn't be surprised if that changes his thinking wholesale on the composition of his midfield.

all good points that i agree with.

what are the rules on the 31? can he bring in players if there are injuries? is it like a lions tour? or is that it, 31 and thats all we have?

Some key players who would defo be selected are injured or been out for a long time. Until they are assessed it's difficult to be sure on the squad.

Im not sure on Burgess. I still say Ewers should be ahead for example. Don't forget Burgess played against us(the falcons) how he copes against mich tougher opposition.

To draft another player in to cover injury, you have to send another home from the tournament. It doesn't matter if you line up a prop to replace a scrum half, it's only the total number that matters, not the composition.

If you have an injury but it's uncertain whether the player will recover, you can name a replacement but they cannot join the squad until another player has left. That's really to help teams who may have to fly someone in from the other side of the world. England did that with Waldrom in NZ: he had to stay out of the camp until a slot was free. At least he could stay with his family.

And Burgess was pretty average against us GF, he done nothing that would deserve the hype he received.

He was the best forward on the pitch man.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He was the best forward on the pitch man.

not sure I agree he was the best forward, however he was (with Louw) probablythe best back row forward whilst on the pitch. Certainly much better than anyone on the opposition side.

It is almost certain that Burgess will be in the extended squad during the summer - after that who knows, but I struggle to see him having the opportunity to demonstrate that he should be in the smaller RWC squad.

This might be an interesting read for some of you

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11547390/England-head-coach-Stuart-Lancaster-will-snub-Steffon-Armitage-for-Rugby-World-Cup-squad-and-rightly-so.html

No 7&1/2 wrote:He was the best forward on the pitch man.

I can't agree with that all.

It was a slightly fabricated performance as they tried to get him involved at every opportunity. He looked ok, I'll give you that but it's a huge leap from looking ok against Falcons and playing at Int level.

People have went ott over an average performance.

Not for me sgt. Of course he needs the run ofg ames now though.

Happy to agree to disagree.

If that was any other player (Ewers etc) we would never have mentioned the performance. It was nothing more than a decent showing imo

It showed that back row will probably be his best position. It was his best performance in Union. However agree that the Burgess hype we have means that everything he does is either over praised or over derided.

LondonTiger wrote:It showed that back row will probably be his best position. It was his best performance in Union. However agree that the Burgess hype we have means that everything he does is either over praised or over derided.

I agree.  He is a terrific athlete, and every so often he shows that he has to potential to be a difference-maker.  But learning a new sport, is, well, learning a new sport.  Takes time, and there are no guarantees.  Hope he comes good, but doubt it will be this year.

The point I was trying make (rather long winded - sorry) was that with an overall squad of 31, by the match day squad is accounted for, there are only eight additional players.  Three of these may be in the front-row and possibly two further covering in some way scrum-half and fly-half.  These then only leaves three players to cover second row/backrow/centre/wing and full-back.

So whilst we would all like to see some existing players in the World Cup, I am afraid this is very unlikely unless there are injuries.

This I think is worst consequence of such a small squad limit.

cb wrote:The point I was trying make (rather long winded - sorry) was that with an overall squad of 31, by the match day squad is accounted for, there are only eight additional players.  Three of these may be in the front-row and possibly two further covering in some way scrum-half and fly-half.  These then only leaves three players to cover second row/backrow/centre/wing and full-back.

So whilst we would all like to see some existing players in the World Cup, I am afraid this is very unlikely unless there are injuries.

This I think is worst consequence of such a small squad limit.

Tuilagi was a bolter in Martin Johnson's squad, joining the World Cup training group and winning his first caps in the warm-up matches, so it has happened before. Given that we still seem uncertain in the midfield, it's not out of the question for the same again this year, even without injuries. Of course, it's more likely through that route, especially since we've lost some of the main candidates for length spells on that account before.

cb wrote:The point I was trying make (rather long winded - sorry) was that with an overall squad of 31, by the match day squad is accounted for, there are only eight additional players.  Three of these may be in the front-row and possibly two further covering in some way scrum-half and fly-half.  These then only leaves three players to cover second row/backrow/centre/wing and full-back.

So whilst we would all like to see some existing players in the World Cup, I am afraid this is very unlikely unless there are injuries.

This I think is worst consequence of such a small squad limit.

BY the way, I thought that was a great analysis.

It's a really good point about the numbers, I don't think we will see any surprises in the squad. SL has shown he is consistent (to a fault) and gives players coming back a chance (again arguably to a fault). Slade may get in but I doubt it.

WCs aren't developing grounds. After the WC I'd like to see some changes at 6, because Wood lacks bulk for an international 6 and a 12 that fits our style. We can really start to rely on the system to produce talent (U20s successes) so just need to ensure that talent comes through at the right time.

Agree with the above, I don't think there'll be any major surprises.

I also agree with Badger and I have said previously, i'd like to see the set up of the pack addressed a little bit especially the back row.

One of the reasons Martin Johnson was prepared to throw the dice in 2011 is that his team had just been comprehensively beaten by Ireland away, and the World Cup was in New Zealand.

I don't see Lancaster as a conservative coach but he may well be more inclined to stick with what he knows on the basis that his team won't need to win away.

Its all about the injured guys. If all were fit, I think we could just about name the starting side (one or two positions debateable) and the squad of 31..

With the chat that has been going on about Maro Itoje on this thread, I thought that this might be interesting for people to read:

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/england-countries/european-champions-cup-analysis-maro-itoje-saracens-44710

He looks good, still no chance fort he wc though.

They keep jizzing all over him and his performances.

I felt he played well but not great, and not having Brown or Wray at 6 perhaps cost Saracens the match as they struggled at the breakdown - often leaving BillyV isolated. Itoje should instead have been in the second road instead of Jim "Slowest Man on the Planet" Hamilton.

Also I hate the way Itoje (like Manu to be fair) leads with the forearm when running into tacklers.

Decent shift from Itoje but he hardly stood out. Clermont generally had pack advantage I thought.

Itoje is a talent but not ready yet.

Let's face it, if fit, the following are basically guaranteed a place in the squad (barring something very weird happening):

Props: Marler, Vunipola, Corbs (rightly or wrongly, there's no way he won't make the squad), Cole, Wilson (5)

Hookers: Hartley, Youngs (2)

Second-row: Lawes, Launchbury, Parling (3)

Back-row: Wood, Haskell, Robshaw, Vunipola, Morgan (5)

SH: Youngs, Care, Wigglesworth (3)

FH: Ford, Farrell (2)

Centres: Barritt, Tuilagi, Joseph (3)

Back-three: Nowell, Watson, Brown (3)

That's 26 players: 15 forwards and eleven backs. Given a likely squad split of 17-14, you're left with two additional forwards spots and three in the backs.

Forwards first. There'll be another hooker in there, probably Webber, then either another prop, or another lock. Probably a lock, as only three seems very much on the light side (they'll back Corbs as a TH in an emergency I guess). Which will most likely be Attwood or Kruis. Slater is an outside chance, some will champion Kitchener, but my gut feeling is that if he were to make the squad he'd have played some part in the 6N ahead of Attwood, Kruis or Easter. If Morgan doesn't make it, it's possible that Easter will go as lock/n°8 cover, and that frees up an additional spot (either a LH - probably Brookes - or an extra back-row player - Clark? Croft? He-who-must-not-be-named-but-is-playing-in-France? Burgess??)

The backs. There'll probably be another two back three players: one winger (May, Wade, Yarde, Ashton, plenty of options there at least, even if none wholly satisfactory), and one specialist FB (I suspect Goode...) I suspect Lancaster will want to try out Tuilagi and Joseph in the centres as a combination in some of the warm-ups, before naming his squad. IF it works, he might feel he doesn't need an extra centre (with Farrell as an emergency deputy), and pick an extra specialist FH. If it doesn't, I suspect we'll see another centre, which could be Burrell, 12T, and I know Slade is getting a mention too.

Overall, there doesn't seem to be much room for any real surprises: I guess someone like George could make a push for the third hooker spot (wouldn't be surprised to at least see him make the training squad, and then who knows), while the only real other option as a "bolter" seems to be Slade.

I think that's not far off, but England will want a third option at fly half, which probably means Cipriani or 36, with Slade an outside option.

And why is everyone assuming Morgan will be fit? It sounds like his rehab is going well, but it won't be complete until mid-July. He won't have played between January and the warm ups. I hope he is ready to go into training camp, but he will have a lot of ground to make up. It's at best 50/50 that he will be in shape to play, especially given that Easter offers a fit and in form alternative.

I also can't see the squad not having an extra TH in it. Given Cole and Wilson have both had injury issues this year, it would be a big risk to rely solely on them. That suggests that at least one player who can play lock and back row will travel, be it Easter, Croft or someone like Kruis. Probably too soon for Itoje.

If it is only 17 forwards, then there is not space for an extra prop, hooker and second row (which would bring it to 6 props, 3 hookers and 4 locks with the current 5 back-rowers).

Very difficult not to have a third hooker, but then a choice between a prop and lock?  Probably better to choose a lock, as normally 3 would be in the 23 man match day squad which leaves no margin for injuries.  I would be disappointed if a fit Morgan misses out because Easter can cover both lock and back-row.

in this day and age with larger squads and a more physical game, the 31 man limit is very silly.