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?

No idea what it is that Itoje has done to generate more hype than Jack Clifford is getting. He looks a big prospect but Clifford has been matching Robshaw all season, and doesn't have any obvious weaknesses at all.

Brown out for rest of season with concussion symptoms 

http://gu.com/p/47yzp/stw

thomh wrote:No idea what it is that Itoje has done to generate more hype than Jack Clifford is getting. He looks a big prospect but Clifford has been matching Robshaw all season, and doesn't have any obvious weaknesses at all.

He plays for Sarries who are very photogenic at the moment, also he captained a winning team at A grade, played in a winning team in the LV too.

Clifford is good but his club are playing poorly so he gets less mentions because of that.

There are loads of exciting youngsters out there tbh. BT just love him for what ever reason. Clifford's time will come if he works hard, people ignored Robshaw until the second player of the season award too.

yappysnap wrote:

thomh wrote:No idea what it is that Itoje has done to generate more hype than Jack Clifford is getting. He looks a big prospect but Clifford has been matching Robshaw all season, and doesn't have any obvious weaknesses at all.

He plays for Sarries who are very photogenic at the moment, also he captained a winning team at A grade, played in a winning team in the LV too.

Clifford is good but his club are playing poorly so he gets less mentions because of that.

There are loads of exciting youngsters out there tbh. BT just love him for what ever reason. Clifford's time will come if he works hard, people ignored Robshaw until the second player of the season award too.

Clifford captained the 2013 JWC winning team. I thought Itoje was only vice-captain in 2014 but may be wrong.

Yes Quins aren't doing so well, but as a result Clifford has broken through, nailed his starting spot and won club player of the month repeatedly, while Itoje is more on the fringes of the starting side for Saracens.

Itoje is clearly a massive prospect. I just think the fact that he is being massively hyped compared to Clifford, who has also been outstanding for months, is a bit of a case of groupthink/people just regurgitating other people's opinions as their own.

I am pretty sure Itoje was captain in 2014. He's a big, visually striking player who plays a very visible role in a team that's doing well.

Clifford is playing in a team that's been struggling this season, next to two players who've dominated the Quins column inches - one because England have consistently selected him, one because they consistently haven't.

But I'd agree with everything that's been said about him. He seems to have a very full skill set for a young player, is comfortable across the back row, carries powerfully and tackles well. And he's fast. That has to be qualified by pointing out that there are plenty of players who've looked good in their first senior season only to fade when opponents are used to them, but I really hope that won't be the case. It will be very interesting to see him up against Burgess when Bath come to the Stoop.

Either way, this year is too early for both of them, but I would not be surprised to see either established in the 2019 squad.

I'd be more surprised if both weren't in the 2019 squad than if they were, great potential and Lancaster has shown he'll give youngsters the chance if they continue to perform

Sarries have been on the telly, Quins have not. I did not recall Clifford playing especially well in the only AP match I have seen him play, though I do feel that Itoje's performances are over-hyped as he does flashy stuff.

LondonTiger wrote:Sarries have been on the telly, Quins have not. I did not recall Clifford playing especially well in the only AP match I have seen him play, though I do feel that Itoje's performances are over-hyped as he does flashy stuff.

Was that the Big Game LT? As I said earlier I think Clifford will struggle to show up as much as Itoje full stop, as Sarries can make their players life pretty easy for him, he's on the wing a lot and gets to run around with the ball. Cliffords in a failing side who lack confidence so he's under a lot more pressure.

Didn't see the big game. To be honest not seeing many matches this season as they conflict with tigers ones.

The second half thrashing you guys gave us in January is I think the only senior game I have seen him play. Even though he scored, I have to admit it was only checking the team sheets that I saw he played. However that is not a bad thing, as it may well mean he is getting on with the nuts and bolts. I have to say though that my memory of him from U20 days was wondering if he was a touch underpowered for grown up rugby.

any way, with any latest back row wunderkid, I will reserve jusdgement until they have played at least a full season as a starter for their club. Over the last decade we have seen any number show early promise and, for various reasons not kick on. Just from Sarries we had Seymour, Saull and Fraser (who does have time still, body permitting) become the latest flavour of the month without ever kicking on.

Add to this the likes of: Wallace, Guest, Narraway, Forrester, Rees, Jones, and maybe Kvesic etc - and it is just further evidence that we produce players in large quantities, but too often fail to identify the real stars or refine them correctly.

BamBam wrote:Brown out for rest of season with concussion symptoms 

http://gu.com/p/47yzp/stw

Lets hope for a full recovery. I know everyone is making encouraging sounds about him being fit for the RWC but what if he doesn't make it? 

I wouldn't mind seeing Nowell in there (and there are a few options) but arguably Brown is second only to Robshaw for irreplacability

LondonTiger wrote:Didn't see the big game. To be honest not seeing many matches this season as they conflict with tigers ones.

The second half thrashing you guys gave us in January is I think the only senior game I have seen him play. Even though he scored, I have to admit it was only checking the team sheets that I saw he played. However that is not a bad thing, as it may well mean he is getting on with the nuts and bolts. I have to say though that my memory of him from U20 days was wondering if he was a touch underpowered for grown up rugby.

any way, with any latest back row wunderkid, I will reserve jusdgement until they have played at least a full season as a starter for their club. Over the last decade we have seen any number show early promise and, for various reasons not kick on. Just from Sarries we had Seymour, Saull and Fraser (who does have time still, body permitting) become the latest flavour of the month without ever kicking on.

Add to this the likes of: Wallace, Guest, Narraway, Forrester, Rees, Jones, and maybe Kvesic etc - and it is just further evidence that we produce players in large quantities, but too often fail to identify the real stars or refine them correctly.

Very true mate

lostinwales wrote:

BamBam wrote:Brown out for rest of season with concussion symptoms 

http://gu.com/p/47yzp/stw

Lets hope for a full recovery. I know everyone is making encouraging sounds about him being fit for the RWC but what if he doesn't make it? 

I wouldn't mind seeing Nowell in there (and there are a few options) but arguably Brown is second only to Robshaw for irreplacability

I think it would be quite a blow.

It would probably mean one of Nowell, Watson or Goode at FB.

At the moment I'd be leaning towards Watson back there as Nowell seems to be finding his feet at left wing. It would then open the possibility of a return for May, Ashton, Rokoduguni or even a chance for Wade. Hope Brown recovers sufficiently though as he's a key player.

LondonTiger wrote:Seymour, Saull and Fraser, Wallace, Guest, Narraway, Forrester, Rees, Jones, and maybe Kvesic etc - and it is just further evidence that we produce players in large quantities, but too often fail to identify the real stars or refine them correctly.

I don't think it's as simple as a failure to identify or refine stars. There's a big element of the attritional nature of the back row, and a couple of other things in there as well.

4 of those were identified but injury has stopped them short of their potential - Narraway, Forrester, Rees all looked to have at least international potential but never fully recovered from one or more injuries, and the same might yet be true of Fraser (or it might not). You could add Croft to that.

Guest and Saull I think made bad career choices having got stuck behind someone established, though Guest wasn't helped by two successive injuries at exactly the time he could have kicked on.

Jones, I think, either lost pace or bulked up and ended up as a lightweight second row rather than establishing himself like Croft did. Seymour, Wallace and Kvesic started brightly but have stagnated to some degree. There's time to recover, for the latter two at least - though Clifford has already overtaken Wallace.

Poorfour wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Seymour, Saull and Fraser, Wallace, Guest, Narraway, Forrester, Rees, Jones, and maybe Kvesic etc - and it is just further evidence that we produce players in large quantities, but too often fail to identify the real stars or refine them correctly.

I don't think it's as simple as a failure to identify or refine stars. There's a big element of the attritional nature of the back row, and a couple of other things in there as well.

4 of those were identified but injury has stopped them short of their potential - Narraway, Forrester, Rees all looked to have at least international potential but never fully recovered from one or more injuries, and the same might yet be true of Fraser (or it might not). You could add Croft to that.

Guest and Saull I think made bad career choices having got stuck behind someone established, though Guest wasn't helped by two successive injuries at exactly the time he could have kicked on.

Jones, I think, either lost pace or bulked up and ended up as a lightweight second row rather than establishing himself like Croft did. Seymour, Wallace and Kvesic started brightly but have stagnated to some degree. There's time to recover, for the latter two at least - though Clifford has already overtaken Wallace.

Which Jones is this?

Thing about those players quoted is a lot of them are in positions where the cupboard was particularly bare. Rees was a great prospect up until the day he retired, he was just never available. The focus (and inflated expectations) on the likes of Saul and Seymour was a drive to fill this void. Same story with Guest really, it is easy to forget just how few genuine no.8 prospects there were. I seriously remember a period of about three-four years spent bemoaning this.

I refuse to include Fraser or Kvesic in this because they are still young and can/will come good in my opinion.

There are so many more options than when were moaning the loss of Rees or bigging up Guest. I think England fans can now be connoisseurs of talent rather than desperately hoping a good professional turns into something more.

Think He means Chris Jones of Sale eddie.

You have a valid point Cumbrian.

I also hope that the new batch coming through (2 consecutive JWC winning teams) can provide a real addition of quality to the side as well to take it to the next level.

GeordieFalcon wrote:You have a valid point Cumbrian.

I also hope that the new batch coming through (2 consecutive JWC winning teams) can provide a real addition of quality to the side as well to take it to the next level.

Thing is, allowing for players who appeared in both, we have perhaps 25-30 guys who appeared in either of the final squads. Realistically ho wmany of those can be expected to become regular internationals - especially as every year their is another group.

Thus we need to be really good at ensuring players get a chance to reach their potential, while at the same time not throwing current players away like trash. Tricky job. If we ignore back row, and concentrate on SH:

Callum Braley was the squad captain (but in the end was unable to hold down the starting spot, so Itoje took the leadership reins). He has left Bristol to join gloucester where he has been 3rd choice.
Henry Taylor took the shirt for the final. Interesting case as he left the Quins academy to go to university and has now signed a "pre-contract" with Sarries.

Alex Day of Saints was the started in 2013, with Braley as understudy. Has anything been seen of him since?

Dan Robson was the starting 9 for much of the 2011/12 season. since he has been backup at Gloucester and is moving to Wasps to probably be back-up.
Ben Spencer, 3rd choice at Sarries, provided back-up, as did the afore-mentioned Day.
Chris Cook, Bath, and Dan Robson featured in the 2011 final.
Sam Harrison and Jordi Pasqualin featured in the 2010 team.
Ben Youngs and Dave Lewis featured in the 2009 team.
Ben Youngs and Joe Simpson featured in the 2008 team.


That is a lot of players who will all have felt they could prosper in pro rugby. However only the first two of those have been able to become first choice for their clubs. Some have not really kicked on, while others still have time - but will be looking over their shoulders at the 2015,16 batch.


The same exercise could be done across the board and I reckon if we wound the clock back 4 years there would have been people suggesting at least one of the Back Rowers from the 2010 squad would feature in this RWC:

James Gaskell (Sale Sharks)**
Jamie Gibson (London Irish)*
Joe Trayfoot (Harlequins)
Jacob Rowan (Leeds Carnegie)*
Will Welch (Newcastle Falcons)
Alex Gray (Newcastle Falcons)
Jackson Wray (Saracens)



So yes, finally you all say, Itoje and Clifford are great prospects - but do not be too surprised if at least one is not overtaken by the next hotshot come 2019.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Think He means Chris Jones of Sale eddie.

Cheers GF

bluestonevedder wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Think He means Chris Jones of Sale eddie.

Cheers GF

TBH I had forgotten Chris Jones and meant Sam, the now only youngish Wasps who played so well for the Barbarians against the Lions two years ago - but is currently out of the frame at Wasps.

Londontiger
you are right many don't kick on but I think Itoje is different because he's getting fast tracked very quickly - obviously the coaches of England and Saracens see his potential.

Look at Nowell, England fast tracked him into the squad.

The difference between Itoje and the other Saracens prospects is that Itoje is getting gametime quicker than the likes of George,Wray and Kruis were at his age.

Itoje looks a great prospect. The key for me is for him to settle at 6 and make that his specialist position, and they work like crazy on his tackle/breakdown technique. He's going to be a great ball carrier, but if he can get the other stuff right then the sky is the limit.

Agree FES, 6 is his position. He reminds me little of Dusatoir in his style and if he can be half as good he'll be a top player.

Is he actually been fast tracked by England? He's not been involved in anything bar the Saxons ala Scotty Wilson.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Agree FES, 6 is his position. He reminds me little of Dusatoir in his style and if he can be half as good he'll be a top player.

Is he actually been fast tracked by England? He's not been involved in anything bar the Saxons ala Scotty Wilson.

I think Itoje's size may be an issue, in that he's either going to be a big 6 or a small lock. Looks like he will be something special but I am not sure where. What he really seems to have going for him is brains, and speed of thought can do a lot to compensate for any deficiencies in speed of foot.

Size?! He's 6'5" and 18 stone according to the Sarries website!

I think for England, Itoje would be better suited at blind-side (if he can become a good enough international).  This would give England a line-out option in the backrow.  Hence both locks need not be top-rate jumpers and takes the pressure off them a bit.  But other contenders, for example Ewers.

However this World Cup is much too soon.

little_badger wrote:Size?! He's 6'5" and 18 stone according to the Sarries website!

Yeah I know- maybe its just me being dumb -  but allowing for 'stats inflation' it still may make him a couple of inches short for a top international lock

lostinwales wrote:

little_badger wrote:Size?! He's 6'5" and 18 stone according to the Sarries website!

Yeah I know- maybe its just me being dumb -  but allowing for 'stats inflation' it still may make him a couple of inches short for a top international lock

I think he's got more chance of breaking into the England team at 6 because we have a lot of lock talent. Although I think Ewers deserves a shot post world cup at the 6 shirt.

I don't know if it's just me, but recently when I have seen Kvesic play he's been pretty good really. I'm not advocating replacing Robshaw by any means but post world cup we need options in case of injury.

Does anyone think that in this professional era any one of the major countries will have a fitness advantage over the other? England hark on about being the fittest in 2003 and trying to play with pace all the time, which would reap benefits in the last 15 minutes of a match. But surely now all the top sides will prepare as professionally as possible and ensure their teams are as fit as possible?

England are training at Pennyhill Park and then going to Denver and Vail or Aspen to train at altitude. Wales are going to Switzerland to train at altitude and then the Middle East to train in intense heat (is that a good thing?) and normally they visit Poland to use the cryotheraphy chambers. I don't know what other countries are doing, but thinking that fitness wise it will be a level playing field for the top countries and therefore the results might actually be dictated by skill and tactics?

The different teams have different fitness philosophies.

Wales seem to reach the highest peak in terms of absolute fitness, but I've long held the view that Gatland trains them to too high a state of tune and it makes them more vulnerable to injuries. With Wales' relative lack of strength in depth, that could cost them come the RWC. They may also be affected by the training regimes of their France-based players.

I haven't watched enough of Ireland recently to be clear on Schmidt's tactics, but my feeling from what I saw in the 6N is that they have very high intensity at the outset but can fade at the end of games.

England on the other hand have tended to finish games strongly but are slow to get started. They also probably have the smallest gap between their starting XV and their bench, which helps in maintaining performance across 80 minutes.

The ABs probably have the only genuine fitness advantage, and I suspect it's down to a combination of physical and mental discipline. They finish games more strongly than anyone else, in part because mentally they know what they have to do and trust each other to do it, and in part because they are more efficient - they expend effort only when they need to, and have trained to allow them to do that throughout a game.

I don't think there's any particular magic to that - it probably comes down to squad stability, a common ethos, and a long run of success. But it's hard to replicate in the short term.

Poorfour wrote:The ABs probably have the only genuine fitness advantage, and I suspect it's down to a combination of physical and mental discipline. They finish games more strongly than anyone else, in part because mentally they know what they have to do and trust each other to do it, and in part because they are more efficient - they expend effort only when they need to, and have trained to allow them to do that throughout a game.

Agree with this wholeheartedly.

I've long felt that a very understated part of the ABs game is their efficiency and having the right players performing the right jobs when needed. For example you very rarely see the likes of Read, Kaino, McCaw or Messam making small carries in and around rucks in their own half to get a better angle for a clearance kick or reset the direction of play. These carries are left up to the likes of Woodcock,Cole, Franks and Whitelock.

However the instant NZ are on the charge in the opposition half the likes of Read, Kaino, McCaw, etc are hurtling onto support lines or offering that extra man in the wide channels to create an overlap. In those moments it often appears the ABs back row is that step above in fitness and power but I often wonder whether a large part of this boils down to their intelligence and tactics in using the right players at the right moment.

It's sounds like basics and are tactics which most if not all international sides will try to employ. However sticking to that level of precision when it matters and for a full 80 minutes is a much more difficult task than it seems.

Of course NZ are also helped by the simple fact they have guys like Retallick and Kaino who can perform either role exceptionally. This making balancing a pack to execute that kind of gameplan a much less complicated task than it would be for many sides.

Woodward now saying he would ignore the rule of picking foreign based players only in exceptional circumstances citing you leave no ifs at a home world cup. I have to ask what the difference is between home world cup, a world cup, a 6Ns etc. It's all the same to me.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Woodward now saying he would ignore the rule of picking foreign based players only in exceptional circumstances citing you leave no ifs at a home world cup. I have to ask what the difference is between home world cup, a world cup, a 6Ns etc. It's all the same to me.

Well, Woodward never really had an eye for the future beyond his own microverse. The counter argument as to why Lancaster shoudl not call up French based players and the harm it would do to both the game in England and the spirit within the England camp has been put forward by
the chairmen of Sarries and Exeter, CEOs of Gloucester and Leicester and the two Toms, Wood and Youngs.

Yeah, don't think it would be a good decision in the short term in respect it'll put a number of the current players noses out of joint. Longer term would lead to more players leaving for France, which could benefit some of their development but lead to less control, risk many players will be left out of the teams, weaken the league?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah, don't think it would be a good decision in the short term in respect it'll put a number of the current players noses out of joint. Longer term would lead to more players leaving for France, which could benefit some of their development but lead to less control, risk many players will be left out of the teams, weaken the league?

Not to mention disrupt the hard-won relationship with the clubs, who will feel a lot less incentive to develop English talent and fit in with the EPS when the RFU is happy for that talent to take itself off to France.

It may be a bit moot in time anyway - the clubs have been talking this season about the BT deal helping to close the financial gap to France, so the incentive to go overseas might fade a bit in time.

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Woodward now saying he would ignore the rule of picking foreign based players only in exceptional circumstances citing you leave no ifs at a home world cup. I have to ask what the difference is between home world cup, a world cup, a 6Ns etc. It's all the same to me.

Well, Woodward never really had an eye for the future beyond his own microverse. The counter argument as to why Lancaster shoudl not call up French based players and the harm it would do to both the game in England and the spirit within the England camp has been put forward by
the chairmen of Sarries and Exeter, CEOs of Gloucester and Leicester and the two Toms, Wood and Youngs.

The RFU has fudged things by allowing the "exceptional circumstances" clause. Woodward is right in one respect. If the coach is going to be set primary performance targets related to on-field results, he should have a free hand to select who he wants. He shouldn't be burdened with the need to consider whether he is going to keep the clubs happy, or cause a mass exodus of talent from the English domestic game. The RFU should take that responsibility away.

Woodward is starting to get on my nerves, I know he has a column and needs to sell papers but his bleating about things is grating on me.

At the end of the day it's the players who will win the world cup, not the coaches or the public. I would rather they go into it as a tight knit group, playing for each other than have any doubts about a player who has been drafted in. It won't be the best players who win it will be the best team. World cups are won by teams that execute their game plan and don't panic, it's not pretty usually but that's what works.

To be honest at the moment my reservations are far more about 6 than 7!

Every time (WOODWARD) opens his mouth about the England team, and who should play gives me the impression that he thinks he should take over the coaching of the England team.

Woodward should realise he (WOODWARD) is not in charge and should keep his big nose out.

I have no problem with Woodward making that point. After all, he's not the only one. A number of ex-players and media figures have argued for Steffon Armitage over the last couple of years. It's no surprise that Woodward thinks the coach should have every asset available to him because that's what he demanded when he had the job.

Personally, I have more of a problem with players talking about how their morale might be affected by a selection decision.

The position of the coach would be clear, and the players less inclined to speak out, if the RFU had a policy with no grey area.

In all honestly England rugby needs Armitage as much as I need a professional to clean my backside.

Sure it will improve the generally look of it, might even perform slightly better but in the end the job will be done to the best of it's ability no matter what, it has gotten by this long without it and has managed to produce the results, yes with the stain here or there but that not to say bringing in an complete outsider in now would change things and if it did would it be for the better?

We have the tools now to do the job we need to focus on using them properly instead of focusing on someone who isn't even in the country.

majesticimperialman wrote:Every time (WOODWARD) opens his mouth about the England team, and who should play gives me the impression that he thinks he should take over the coaching of the England team.

Woodward should realise he (WOODWARD) is not in charge and should keep his big nose out.

Surely mr Tcup deserves more respect for winning a world cup than to be cast down like some irrelevant old hack?

Yeah, Woodward was a man who never settled for 2nd place...

Woodward looks at the short term rather than the bigger picture. It's why after the RWC win in 2003 there was no proper plan for sustaining England as a rugby nation fighting it at the top.

In most aspects of life you need to plan for a sustainable future. In sports' case build a strong foundation and platform then go from there.

England are building a solid platform these days because they are getting a solid group of talented youngsters who are coming through from the strong U20s and younger age groups.

Not every player makes it but the talent pool is growing every year.

Look at just two sides - Bath and Saracens.

Bath's backs - Cook, Ford,Devoto,Eastmond,Joseph,Watson,Woodburn,Homer - all young.

Saracens' forwards - Mako,George,Kruis,Itoje,Wray,Fraser,Billy - all young.

Woodward was very focused (rightly so) on achieving the RWC. 

Afterwards, as far as I can understand I thought he quit because of differences in opinion on long term development? He wanted a better structure in place and the RFU were not ready at the time to do so.

lostinwales wrote:Woodward was very focused (rightly so) on achieving the RWC. 

Afterwards, as far as I can understand I thought he quit because of differences in opinion on long term development? He wanted a better structure in place and the RFU were not ready at the time to do so.

Well that is what he said. Only he knows if it was true. that he lost 5 of his last 6 matches in charge, with hi sstars ageing may have been a co-incidence. some may say he knew the writing was on the wall.

Oh hes an old crazy guy nowadays, but for a little while he got everything right

He also got a little lucky in the players he had available, but yes in a world where many teams were professional in name only, he organised things so that England were truly professional.

He was helped that his coaches, Ashton and Robinson, were excellent at their jobs (but lousy as head coaches).

Woodward quit because the RFU couldn't secure the number of training days he wanted with his squad - something that the EPS has I believe delivered. But he had no involvement with the longer term development pipeline and it was effectively nonexistent when he left anyway.

Rob Andrew cops a lot of flak, but he had a lot to do with establishing the EPS and the current age grade system, and in appointing first Conor O'Shea and then Stuart Lancaster to run the player development process.

Also, I don't think he did get everything right - even in 2001-2003. To listen to Martin Johnson, who I don't think has an axe to grind, Woodward would generate a hundred ideas for things to try every season, of which two or three were brilliant but most of the rest would be hopeless. Andy Robinson and the senior players played a big role in filtering out the ones that weren't usable.