Englands' 50 man Training Squad for RWC

First topic message reminder :

England Rugby World Cup training squad (50)
Chris Ashton (Saracens)
Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby)
Brad Barritt (Saracens)
Kieran Brookes (Newcastle Falcons)
Mike Brown (Harlequins)
Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints)
Sam Burgess (Bath Rugby)
Danny Care (Harlequins)
Danny Cipriani (Sale Sharks)
Calum Clark (Northampton Saints)
Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers)
Alex Corbisiero (Northampton Saints)
Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs)
Elliot Daly (Wasps)
Lee Dickson (Northampton Saints)
Kyle Eastmond (Bath Rugby)
Nick Easter (Harlequins)
Owen Farrell (Saracens)
George Ford (Bath Rugby)
Alex Goode (Saracens)
Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints)
James Haskell (Wasps)
Maro Itoje (Saracens)
Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby)
George Kruis (Saracens)
Matt Kvesic (Gloucester Rugby)
Joe Launchbury (Wasps)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints)
Joe Marler (Harlequins)
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby)
Stephen Myler (Northampton Saints)
Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby)
Matt Mullan (Wasps)
Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs)
Geoff Parling (Leicester Tigers)
Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)
Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs)
Ed Slater (Leicester Tigers)
David Strettle (Saracens)
Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester Rugby)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens)
Mako Vunipola (Saracens)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby)
Rob Webber (Bath Rugby)
Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens)
David Wilson (Bath Rugby)
Tom Wood (Northampton Saints)
Marland Yarde (Harlequins)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)
Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

I want the coaches to go into that first game knowing their squad, and managing the resources accordingly.

I do not want them experimenting or still trying to work out who should go. I want those games to be a training exercise that, all being well, merely rubber stamps the squad selection.

I'd like to see (but don't expect) this squad:

LH: Marler, Mako
TH: Cole, Brookes (Never rated Wilson)
Utility prop: Corbisiero
H: Youngs, LCD, George (Webber is just horrible at the moment)

SR: Launchbury, Lawes, Parling, Itoje (covers 6)

BS: Wood (covers 7), Burgess (covers 12)
OS: Robshaw, Kvesic

8: Morgan, Billy (covers 6)

SH: Youngs, Wigglesworth, Simpson (covers Wing)
FH: Ford, Farrell

C: Barritt, Slade (covers 10), Joseph, Daly (covers FB)

W: Watson, Nowell (both cover 15, Nowell 13 too), May

FB: Brown

Standbys:
Mullen, Hartley, Wilson, Slater, Easter, Care, Cipriani (?), Eastmond, Burrell, Ashton, Goode.

I would expect both Cole and Wilson to be chosen at TH and as for the 5th Utility prop (unless six are taken) I would have gone with Brookes rather than Corbisiero as TH is perhaps harder to play than loose head.  Brookes I believe has played both sides as well as in the distant pass hooker.

Ok people....

Lots being discussed of "outsiders" Burgess, Slade, and Itoje.

Whats their realistic chances..? I think Slade has the best chance of the 3.

Geordiefalcon Yes you are right Slade has the highest chance.

As King Carlos said - Itoje is a type of player Lancaster likes but he also adds a bit of abrasiveness too.

It was a surprise when Itoje was picked for the Saxons in Autumn but that faith shown in Lancaster has been repaid so far.

There is nothing more that Itoje could have done since the Autumn.


Burgess is another Lancaster favourite but he's a different player. That could work for or against him.

It will all depend on who Lancaster gives gametime to.

Londontiger there's still a few question marks though - like who will be 6 if Wood is injured, hooker if Youngs is injured, Robshaw, back up for Cole etc.

How Lancaster deals with Itoje interests me. As you say he has been starting for the champions...in the final aswell.

He is the style of player that Lancaster desires and he is captaincy material aswell. In any other year he probably would have been an easy decision to select.

The one thing for him is his relative youth and the fact he's probably coming in to Englands strongest area. Even competition from sarries own Kruis who I rate highly (despite not showing that form for England)

Launchbury and Lawes are certainties....edit - So is Parling

That leaves a battle for 1 spot between Kruis, Itoje, Attwood, Slater. That's not an easy decision

Parling as well GF.

Forgot all about him....and he's probably a dead cert aswell...so that reduces it to 1 out of those .....

I agree beshocked- I think Lancaster really likes Itoje. Rightly so because he has been fantastic this season, and it's unbelievable to think he's only 20. 

I like Slade to make the squad as our utility back, especially now Cipriani has been a prize plonker. 

I would love to see Kvesic make the squad and get some game time at 7, but honestly I think Haskell will pip him to it. Haskell was poor after the Wales game, and to be truthful, I don't have a lot of faith in him on the international scene. 

No.8 picks itself- big Billy and mountain Morgan.

GeordieFalcon wrote:How Lancaster deals with Itoje interests me. As you say he has been starting for the champions...in the final aswell.

He is the style of player that Lancaster desires and he is captaincy material aswell. In any other year he probably would have been an easy decision to select.

The one thing for him is his relative youth and the fact he's probably coming in to Englands strongest area. Even competition from sarries own Kruis who I rate highly (despite not showing that form for England)

Launchbury and Lawes are certainties....edit - So is Parling

That leaves a battle for 1 spot between Kruis, Itoje, Attwood, Slater. That's not an easy decision

It's so tough! I personally love all four of those players, but I think Slater deserves a shot and could be the 'enforcer' type that England hoped Attwood would be.

Itoje has played well enough, but I feel the current hype exceeds his actual performances. I hope he progresses and becomes the player we hope - though I do still wonder what his final position will be.

Funny that if Launchbury had not turned down Sarries contract offer, Itoje would probably still be an LV player only for Sarries.

Is Morgan on track for the WC. Could hinder Itoje if Easter is included?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Is Morgan on track for the WC. Could hinder Itoje if Easter is included?

Hope I am proved wrong but I think that Morgan is one of those players who have to work extra hard on the fitness. I don't know if he will have enough time to get back to fitness after recovering from the leg break. He is a great player but you'd really want him to last the full 80 if we really had to, especially as new model Billy seems capable of playing all through the tournament.

bluestonevedder wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:How Lancaster deals with Itoje interests me. As you say he has been starting for the champions...in the final aswell.

He is the style of player that Lancaster desires and he is captaincy material aswell. In any other year he probably would have been an easy decision to select.

The one thing for him is his relative youth and the fact he's probably coming in to Englands strongest area. Even competition from sarries own Kruis who I rate highly (despite not showing that form for England)

Launchbury and Lawes are certainties....edit - So is Parling

That leaves a battle for 1 spot between Kruis, Itoje, Attwood, Slater. That's not an easy decision

It's so tough! I personally love all four of those players, but I think Slater deserves a shot and could be the 'enforcer' type that England hoped Attwood would be.

And Slater covers 6, AND is another leader in the team as the Captain of Leicester....

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Is Morgan on track for the WC. Could hinder Itoje if Easter is included?

Hope I am proved wrong but I think that Morgan is one of those players who have to work extra hard on the fitness. I don't know if he will have enough time to get back to fitness after recovering from the leg break. He is a great player but you'd really want him to last the full 80 if we really had to, especially as new model Billy seems capable of playing all through the tournament.

Billys fitness is excellent now...and his workrate is exceptionally high. Even Jaques Burger said that Billy was one of the hardest working players at Sarries. High praise.

Ben Morgan does struggle with his fitness...but he's a quality player when he's fit. If we go in to the WC with a fully fit Billy and Ben we'd have no worries at 8.

We could also have had Ewers in there covering 6/8....!

GeordieFalcon wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:How Lancaster deals with Itoje interests me. As you say he has been starting for the champions...in the final aswell.

He is the style of player that Lancaster desires and he is captaincy material aswell. In any other year he probably would have been an easy decision to select.

The one thing for him is his relative youth and the fact he's probably coming in to Englands strongest area. Even competition from sarries own Kruis who I rate highly (despite not showing that form for England)

Launchbury and Lawes are certainties....edit - So is Parling

That leaves a battle for 1 spot between Kruis, Itoje, Attwood, Slater. That's not an easy decision

It's so tough! I personally love all four of those players, but I think Slater deserves a shot and could be the 'enforcer' type that England hoped Attwood would be.

And Slater covers 6, AND is another leader in the team as the Captain of Leicester....

True, true. 

We've really got a wealth of players capable of slotting into the England second row now.

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Is Morgan on track for the WC. Could hinder Itoje if Easter is included?

Hope I am proved wrong but I think that Morgan is one of those players who have to work extra hard on the fitness. I don't know if he will have enough time to get back to fitness after recovering from the leg break. He is a great player but you'd really want him to last the full 80 if we really had to, especially as new model Billy seems capable of playing all through the tournament.

That's my concern as well - fortunately, Easter has both form and fitness (and experience) so there is a straightforward alternative.

Is Easter as good as an offensive runner as Morgan?
Or does he make up for it elsewhere in the game.

I just think if we're going for the workmanlike pack...we need the running of Morgan. Easter isn't as good in that area.

But if Morgan isn't fit enough he's next in line. Offers cover to the 2nd row as well.

If Morgan is not fit enough, I would actually like to see Itoje in instead. No reason he could not cover No8

GeordieFalcon wrote:Is Easter as good as an offensive runner as Morgan?
Or does he make up for it elsewhere in the game.

I just think if we're going for the workmanlike pack...we need the running of Morgan. Easter isn't as good in that area.

In a word no (but then not many are). He has the muscle but nothing like the explosive power and pace (or any kind of pace). He does have good hands, a good offload, and will truck the ball up all day long, so can create for others. He is also a decent line out option, which Morgan is not.

He certainly puts himself about I'd give you that. Very quick off the mark and flies into some thundering tackles likes Lawes which is great to see. Not sure his carrying is quite good enough yet though for 8 LT.

Do you guys think he is physically ready for the rigours of top international rugby?

If he is then by all means he should definitely in the group to be considered.

I think Itoje is not quite ready yet (or no better than the other candidates), but when he does get a chance for England I would like to see him given a go at blindside first because that would give the backrow a line-out option.  Which means England could opt for a bit more ballast in the second row.  May not work out of course.

cb wrote:I think Itoje is not quite ready yet (or no better than the other candidates), but when he does get a chance for England I would like to see him given a go at blindside first because that would give the backrow a line-out option.  Which means England could opt for a bit more ballast in the second row.  May not work out of course.

I just cant see any one getting in over Lawes and Launchbury for a while. I think that's why many England fans want to see an absolute bruiser at 6.
Someone like the unfortunate Jerry Collins.

I honestly think that if Morgan is fit and in form the back row will be:

Vunipola
Robshaw
Morgan

spaynter wrote:I honestly think that if Morgan is fit and in form the back row will be:

Vunipola
Robshaw
Morgan

Quick teams who are breakdown savvy will love this. I know Vunipola and Robshaw both have a great work rate, but speed and agility to the breakdown is very important in the modern game.

Unless of course, that extra mobility is found elsewhere, which seems to be the case with Launchbury and Lawes. I seem to remember Launchbury in particular being very handy at the breakdown.

Its a possibility but will leave us weak in the lineout. Neither Morgan nor Billy are great line out guys. 

Would certainly be fun going forward

That is also why I do not think Burgess is currently a good option for England at blindside. He definitely has the physical attributes, but I think that creates a huge problem at the breakdown that other teams will exploit.

I thought the Sarries-Bath final was a great example of this.

Cole, Launchbury and Robshaw should be enough. I actually think the best back row would be

Vunipola
Kvesic (discounting Armitage)
Morgan

But I can fully appreciate why Lancaster won't drop Robshaw.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:That is also why I do not think Burgess is currently a good option for England at blindside. He definitely has the physical attributes, but I think that creates a huge problem at the breakdown that other teams will exploit.

I thought the Sarries-Bath final was a great example of this.

How so? I've seen all his games bar 1 at 6 and he's looked very good at the breakdown. Thought he was the standout Bath forward in the final. The big question is whether England can get him involved in the lineout to a sufficient standard.

I don't believe you could have both Morgan and Vunipola in the same back row, it just looks too unbalanced for me. They aren't quick enough in my opinion and we'd see a lot of play ending in isolation and penalties.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

spaynter wrote:I honestly think that if Morgan is fit and in form the back row will be:

Vunipola
Robshaw
Morgan

Quick teams who are breakdown savvy will love this. I know Vunipola and Robshaw both have a great work rate, but speed and agility to the breakdown is very important in the modern game.

Unless of course, that extra mobility is found elsewhere, which seems to be the case with Launchbury and Lawes. I seem to remember Launchbury in particular being very handy at the breakdown.

That back row would work well if they had Cole, Launchbury and Lawes as well, plus someone on the bench if they did need to add more breakdown capability. I think also people forget that "the breakdown" is actually a number of roles: protecting your own ball; slowing down opposition ball; stealing the ball. England's breakdown tactics at the moment don't prioritise stealing the ball. They protect, and they slow down enough to get their defensive line sorted, but they only try to steal when there's a clear opportunity.

Someone on another forum posted breakdown and turnover stats for Armitage and Robshaw a while back. Armitage made about 5x as many turnovers. But he also gave away so many additional penalties that the net position was the same: Armitage wins much more ball than Robshaw, but he loses an equal amount.

What those stats tell me is this: contesting rucks is a high risk activity, even if you're as good at it as Armitage inarguably is. The loss from giving away a penalty is 3 points or 60 yards, as they put it on Rugby Tonight. To be worth contesting turnovers the way Armitage does, you have to be confident that when you win one, you are making more than 3 points or 60 yeards, because that's what you're going to lose on the 50% of occasions it doesn't come off.

(As an aside, I think Robshaw is very disciplined about what he contests. It's very noticeable how many times his turnovers come when Quins really, really need one - think of the last play of the 2012 AP Final, with Leicester camped on Quins' line hoping to force extra time. Guess who comes up with the ball?).

Personally, I think it would a huge error to throw Itoje, who I don't believe has ever played 8 at U20 or senior level in at 8 for his first caps in a Rugby World Cup. Remember what happened when Wood was put in at 8? And that was a comparatively seasoned international who has on occasion played 8 at club level. 8 is a specialist position and it needs someone who has played there a fair bit.

Easter's carrying isn't as explosive as Morgan's (but then, who's is?), but he has a better nose for a gap and is more likely to keep the ball alive. As Brian Ashton put it "he brings subtlety, and that allows you to do different things." A fully fit option is still the best option, but if he's not fully fit, it's good to have an alternative available.

Good post Poorfour.

Whilst it's pointing out the obvious, our first task is topping our pool which means beating Wales and Australia.

6.Lydiate
7.Warburton - Tipuric coming off the bench
8.Faletau

That Wales back row of Lydiate, Warburton and Faletau has it's detractors but one things it's very good at is isolating big runners and putting huge pressure on the breakdown due to their speed to the ball.

6.Pocock
7.Hooper
8.McCalman or Higginbotham

The Australia back row is more up in the air with Pocock returning to form and fitness. However with Hooper as captain (and arguably the best openside in the game) plus the possibility of Pocock at 6 their breakdown presence will be massive.

As such I think Burgess would be horribly exposed if selected. I'd also have similar concerns about the use of Billy V and Morgan in the same back row. Although it is an option I've championed before for certain games, South Africa for instance, I think it would be a very bold selection given the group we need to get out of.

One of the things Burgess is good at is clearing out. So he wouldn't necessarily be a weakness against offensive ruck teams. But he's not necessarily great at poaching himself. So it depends really.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:That is also why I do not think Burgess is currently a good option for England at blindside. He definitely has the physical attributes, but I think that creates a huge problem at the breakdown that other teams will exploit.

I thought the Sarries-Bath final was a great example of this.

How so? I've seen all his games bar 1 at 6 and he's looked very good at the breakdown. Thought he was the standout Bath forward in the final. The big question is whether England can get him involved in the lineout to a sufficient standard.

He is good at clearing the rucks, which has already been mentioned, but there needs to be players capable of slowing down opposition ball at critical moments in the game, especially against the likes of Wales/Australia. They generally need to be quick and able to read the game well. They do not even have to be in the back row, which has also been mentioned, but it obviously helps immeasurably.

I think that Saracens gained a lot of momentum and were able to get quick ball and not commit too many men to the breakdown, which allowed them to play the game at their own pace. With a team more clinical at the breakdown they may not have had such free reign to manoeuvre. Saracens were very smart in that area.

Fair enough if you think that. He's made a few turnovers already, 3 in his first game I think though that was against Newcastle (?), it's more Louw's territory and he's one of the best in the league. Saracens didn't commit to the breakdown in defence waiting for errors which they pounced on, they're brilliantly clinical in those situations.

I'd argue that against both Wales and Australia, we'll have the Lions share of the ball given the strength of the tight 5s. We should be concentrating on using that ball to gain ground through the back row, rather than need to turnover lots of ball.

I am less concerned about burgess at the breakdown than some, but do think he could be exploited there by the best teams. I am worried about him at scrum and lineout. He often is not included in the lineout by bath - usually avaiulable as a ball carrier on their ball or a tackler on opponents. At the scrum he has been offering bugger all support to the props. A half decent practitioner can help their prop stay straight, make it hard for the scrum half to get rounds and keep their head up to react quickly to whatever happens. Too often Burgess is like a ostritch with arse in the air and head down.

spaynter - it is not just making ground but having players alert, good enough to ensure we protect it. Best example was last seasons HC final. BillyV carried wonderfully well but Smith and Lobbe would make sure he was isolated which allowed Steffon to jackle.

Surely if you were playing against the aussies for example a top breakdown back row,  you would change tactics to try avoid being in those situations as much. Easier said than done i appreciate.  

I still say if only wood was a bit better carrier we wouldn't be arguing now. He's class in all the other aspects of a back rower.

If everyone is so bothered about breakdown ....one alternative could be...

6 Robshaw
7Kvesic
8 Morgan

But I'd put my mortgage on it...the first game be

6 Wood
7 Robshaw
8 Billy

And that's still a strong back row...aligned with Lawes, and Launchbury .

Just wished we had a bit more dynamic carrying to help Billy.

If England were down 10 points, a backrow with Vunipola and Morgan would be an interesting option.  I tend to be in favour of a replacement bench having impact, but it may not be such a good choice for closing out a game.

Post world cup (though I still like Robshaw), a fantasy backrow of Vunipola, Itoje and Kvesic or Burgess might be exciting.  As many have pointed out with Launchbury, Lawes and Cole there would be additional assistance at the rucks.

Generally I would like a backrow which worries the opposition.

cb wrote:If England were down 10 points, a backrow with Vunipola and Morgan would be an interesting option.  I tend to be in favour of a replacement bench having impact, but it may not be such a good choice for closing out a game.

Post world cup (though I still like Robshaw), a fantasy backrow of Vunipola, Itoje and Kvesic or Burgess might be exciting.  As many have pointed out with Launchbury, Lawes and Cole there would be additional assistance at the rucks.

Generally I would like a backrow which worries the opposition.

I could see Clifford overtaking Kvesic sooner rather than later. Or perhaps the two of them paired up. England are spoilt for choice, even without Armitage.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Surely if you were playing against the aussies for example a top breakdown back row,  you would change tactics to try avoid being in those situations as much. Easier said than done i appreciate.  

I still say if only wood was a bit better carrier we wouldn't be arguing now. He's class in all the other aspects of a back rower.

If everyone is so bothered about breakdown ....one alternative could be...

6 Robshaw
7Kvesic
8 Morgan

But I'd put my mortgage on it...the first game be

6 Wood
7 Robshaw
8 Billy

And that's still a strong back row...aligned with Lawes, and Launchbury .

Just wished we had a bit more dynamic carrying to help Billy.

I really like the look of a 6.Robshaw 7.Kvesic 8.Morgan/Billy 20.Morgan/Billy. Offers a big work rate, breakdown presence and that bit more link work from Kvesic. Could be very interesting to see tried in a warm up game.

Wood has looked fairly nailed on when fit for most of Lancasters tenure so is favourite though you're right. I can't complain too much about it for likely tight world cup games either. He rarely makes mistake and offers a great line-out option which in scrappy games could be a great option.

Geordiefalcon the way you add a ball carrier is starting Mako in the frontrow.

One thing that hasn't been factored in is freshness of players.

Personally instead of training I think most players need to have a rest.

Some of these guys have been playing almost non stop.

Got to use the Irish policy of wrapping players in cotton wool.

Particularly the likes of Cole,Robshaw and Billy.

Except Mako has, like Marler, never brought his carrying game to the international arena. Marler is the better prop and the more rounded player, Mako is an ideal impact sub.

To be fair you probably already have the best carrier starting now anyway in T Youngs.

Londontiger disagree. What can Marler do that Mako can't? He might be arguably a better scrummager but that's the only area he might have an advantage. Even that's debatable. Workrate, defence and carrying - Mako wins hands down.

no 7 & 1/2 perhaps but it depends what balance you want.

I don't think there's a perhaps in Youngs starting now. The battle is for sub. To be fair the way the subs for front row work it's much of a muchness either way.

Based on performances for England I disagree 100%. Mako has offered nothing, for England, that Marler cannot do to as good a level if not better.