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)

Marler was a bit 'average' when he first played for england but has improved out of sight and become an important player for us.

Maybe its because he hasn't had the chances to prove otherwise but Mako has not seemed to move on in the same way (unlike his 'little' brother).

Mako looks excellent at club level, as did Marler. both, in different ways were big carriers at club level. Neither has brought that part of their game to the international arena.

Looking at the last season's stats for England, Marler made more tackles per minute played than Mako at a higher success rate. He hit more rucks and mauls per minute and conceded less penalties. Mako made more carries per minute played for more distance.

lostinwales well I wouldn't certainly disagree with Mako's club form. Mako's been an important part of Saracens' improved scrum. Personally I think Sarries have a scrum which is top 3 in the AP (Tigers top, about on par with Exeter's). I wouldn't put Quins scrum in the top 5 (Yes I know that the scrum is about more than just one man but still....).

Londontiger it's been hard for Mako to make a case for England when he's not been given the opportunities. To be fair to Marler he's done quite well but Mako hasn't really had the opportunity to show what he can do from the start.

Also I disagree - Mako makes far more tackles than Marler and any other LH in England. Mako's workrate is very high indeed.

Given where we were when Corbs seemed the be all and end all I'm pretty pleased to have these 2 as the front runners. Both are quality and are going to be for a while yet (touch wood). It's pretty clear Marler is the man in possession but with his injury Mako does have a slim chance to push ahead.

beshocked wrote:
Also I disagree - Mako makes far more tackles than Marler and any other LH in England. Mako's workrate is very high indeed.

For England, last season the stats say no.

I am not disparaging him as a player - just stating I think the current set-up of Marlet starts, Mako comes on is better than the other way round.

no 7 & 1/2 I agree. Nice to have good two looseheads. Corbisiero breaks down too often and has been inconsistent this season.

Londontiger where are these stats? Don't get me wrong - I think Marler is good but Marler is injured, Mako is playing well. I want Mako to get an opportunity to start to see if he will bring his good club form to international level ( I know club form is not the same).

I want to see a change in the team dynamic to see how it goes. A frontrow of Mako,Youngs and Cole is something I would like tried at some point.

If club form was so important to international form then Morgan would never play for England.

I think Mullan is a quality LH also.

I went through the match data from Accenture, match by match to build them up.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think Mullan is a quality LH also.

He is, and his loyalty to Worcester probably cost him a lot of caps.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think Mullan is a quality LH also.

Too true, he's been excellent this year.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 I agree. Nice to have good two looseheads. Corbisiero breaks down too often and has been inconsistent this season.

Londontiger where are these stats? Don't get me wrong - I think Marler is good but Marler is injured, Mako is playing well. I want Mako to get an opportunity to start to see if he will bring his good club form to international level ( I know club form is not the same).

I want to see a change in the team dynamic to see how it goes. A frontrow of Mako,Youngs and Cole is something I would like tried at some point.

If club form was so important to international form then Morgan would never play for England.

It's a while ago now but the thought of the Lions with Young and Mako still sends shivers. Both have improved but...

All of the hookers on that trip had their fair share of problems

I don't think either player were as bad as made out on the Lions tour.

Mako made a load of tackles and a few turnovers. Okay his scrummaging wasn't great but sometimes that's down to the interpretation of the ref. These days, Mako has had the ref on his side more often than not.

How would you rate the frontrows of the clubs?

Personally for scrummaging this season IMO - top 5.

1.Tigers
2.Exeter
3.Saracens (was poor at the beginning but got stronger when Mako came back)
4.Bath
5.Saints (strong at the beginning but got worse as the season went on)

These sides probably have the best all round frontrows too.

Throw Wasps in there as well. Very good particularly first half of the season.

beshocked, looking at club form for this season will inevitably do Marler a major disservice, because Quins have been seriously depleted elsewhere in the tight five.

Our alleged senior tighthead (PDJ) barely played, our two recent academy promotees spent the latter half of the season out with knee injuries (one of the courtesy of a Jacques Burger special - thanks) and we finished the season with a prop recruited from ND1 after Christmas being backed up by a kid now playing JRWC with the England U20s. Add to that Kennedy's late and unexpected retirement, leaving us with Easter playing lock for much of the season, and it's hardly a fair basis for comparison.

But on the international stage, Marler's been quietly improving. He doesn't carry as much as he does at club level - but on the international stage a prop has to put much more into the scrum.

We have to see if he comes back from his shoulder surgery without losing form, but it was timed to ensure he would have enough time to recover and it will mean he's had a decent rest period for the first time since 2012.

England are lucky to have 4 genuinely international class looseheads, and in Rowntree they have a forwards coach who knows more about what's needed than any of us do. I'm not going to argue with the pecking order as he sees it, regardless of who he chooses.

Poorfour has the Quins scrum ever really been that good?

Sure it could hold it's own with James Johnston at the club but it's not really been an area of strength for Quins IMO even with Marler in the frontrow.

IMO Quins have never really focussed their efforts on the scrum like sides such as Tigers and Saints have done.

Surprised Quins haven't put more emphasis on the forwards with their latest signings.

Quins have always prioritised having a mobile scrum over a monster scrummaging unit, and it's rarely been lauded, but when we've had consistent personnel for a period it generally has good stats without being obviously dominant.

We've struggled to replace Olly Kohn, and we've been unlucky that PDJ was almost continuously injured, putting too much pressure on Collier and Sinckler (who both made the Saxons squad in their first senior seasons).

In terms of recruitment, I wouldn't call Horwill and Adam Jones a lack of focus in recruitment, especially given the raw talent coming out of the academy.

If we were going for a scrummaging pack who'd we have?

I'd probably be thinking at their peak

Mullan George Wilson
Attwood Kruis
Wood Robshaw and Billy V

Poorfour wrote:We've struggled to replace Olly Kohn, and we've been unlucky that PDJ was almost continuously injured, putting too much pressure on Collier and Sinckler (who both made the Saxons squad in their first senior seasons).

Gotta feel for Sinckler - who arguably was last years Maro Itoje. started 2013/14 season as a JWC winner. Established himself in a premiership side and by the end of the season was in the England Squad, having appeared for the Saxons in the winter. Second season (in a position much harder than the Sarries lad) has been tougher not helped by the factorse you mentioned and then a bad knee injury.

Hopefully Jones will take some pressure off him but he's been exceptional (although some of that may have been in comparison to PDJ )

Poorfour bringing in two forwards to replace two forwards doesn't show a huge emphasis on beefing up. It's not as if you've gone a huge recruiting spree.

Plus Adam Jones is past his prime - he's also the opposite of mobile if that's what you want.

Don't know enough about Horwill but he's one player - perhaps he will solve Quins issues. We'll see.

Londontiger you say Sinckler is in a tougher position. Not sure I agree. Every position has their own pitfalls. Locks and flankers need to show different skills - you need the physicality and technique to compete. Itoje's own versatility is what has made it look straightforward.

You can be found out very quickly in any position if you're not up to standard.

Plus Itoje has to compete with internationals like Hamilton,Brown and Kruis.

Sinkler's competition was an injured PDJ.... enough said....

I know you believe Itoje is overhyped but I disagree completely.

I think it's more likely an overhyped player is someone who can walk into the England squad with no proper international experience and barely any gametime this season......

That's my personal opinion anyhow.

I know you are never, ever wrong - but you should look up what hype means.

LondonTiger wrote:

Poorfour wrote:We've struggled to replace Olly Kohn, and we've been unlucky that PDJ was almost continuously injured, putting too much pressure on Collier and Sinckler (who both made the Saxons squad in their first senior seasons).

Gotta feel for Sinckler - who arguably was last years Maro Itoje. started 2013/14 season as a JWC winner. Established himself in a premiership side and by the end of the season was in the England Squad, having appeared for the Saxons in the winter. Second season (in a position much harder than the Sarries lad) has been tougher not helped by the factorse you mentioned and then a bad knee injury.

Same with Collier, who's a year older, not as flash around the pitch but a better scrummager (the Sinck was a fullback until his late teens, so still learning at prop), similar injury story. Probably would have been ahead of Sinckler for the Saxons but for an injury at the wrong moment. But a long preseason and Adam Jones should give them both room to grow into their potential. If they can stay fit, they should end up as a Cole/Castro style double act.

They should get a chance to shine in the early part of next season, especially if England are involved in the business end of RWC, as will Clifford, who will find himself in a similar position to where Robshaw was 4 years ago.

beshocked - it's never really been about numbers for Quins, it's about the balance of senior and junior players. COS made the point at a members' event last week that the senior players who should have been the leadership group when the England contingent were away were mostly injured last season. The only senior players who played consistently last season were Karl Dickson, Mark Lambert and George Robson. PDJ, Evans, JTH, Casson, Lowe, Monye and Williams all spent significant chunks of the season injured, as did Marler, Brown and to a lesser extent Robshaw (and who were all, nonetheless, away with England to the maximum extent possible) Brown and Marler didn't take to the pitch in Quins colours after the end of January. The point about the recruits is not to add numbers, but to add some experience to get the younger players through the tough games.

We've shown several times that when we can field a consistent pack for a run of games, we can match much bigger and more vaunted packs. PDJ is pretty much the only prop we've had that John Kingston hasn't significantly improved over time - Mike Ross went from a professional rugby reject to being poached by Leinster; JJ went from Census's fat younger brother to being poached by Sarries; Marler, Collier and Sinckler went from the academy to representative rugby in a couple of years. Even Matt Shields has improved dramatically in the half season we've had him. Jones is there to take pressure off Collier and Sinckler and to give us an option when the referee doesn't like the younger players' style, like Jason Leonard did in the 2003 RWC Final. Horwill is there to provide a more experienced partner for the four junior locks we have coming through.

Londontiger I am wrong sometimes.

Poorfour I agree balance is important but in my opinion it seems like Quins have relied far too much on the England core of Easter,Brown,Marler,Robshaw and Care. Someone else needs to take responsibility.

Oh and as for JJ - you're welcome to having him back.

You can match much bigger and more vaunted packs but not for 80 minutes....

Every side gets injuries.

I think the biggest issue for Quins is that Conor O Shea doesn't adapt his gameplan.

Does any team really adapt their gameplan that much though?

I guess not but obviously if you've got a winning approach there's less need to change it.

Quins have fallen out of the top 6 let alone the top 4.

beshocked wrote:Poorfour I agree balance is important but in my opinion it seems like Quins have relied far too much on the England core of Easter,Brown,Marler,Robshaw and Care. Someone else needs to take responsibility.

Oh and as for JJ - you're welcome to having him back.

You can match much bigger and more vaunted packs but not for 80 minutes....

Every side gets injuries.

I think the biggest issue for Quins is that Conor O Shea doesn't adapt his gameplan.

Beshocked, do you actually read other people's posts? My whole point was that the "someone else [who] needs to take responsibility" were injured at exactly the points when they were needed. We had a lot of teams full of kids on the pitch for many games last season.

In terms of 80 minutes, at 78 minutes in the 2012 final, a Quins pack where we'd only replaced the hooker and one flanker faced a Tigers scrum near the Quins 5m line. The Tigers had a fresh front row. Tigers put in. The Quins pack took the hit, gave just enough shove to unsteady the Tigers pack, and settled before Wayne had time to give a penalty for an early shove. They dominated that scrum, and from the resulting scrappy possession Quins won a turnover to seal the match.

Only one example, but actually when we have a fully fit squad we can play for 80.

The injuries are an issue though. We've run a smallish squad for the last few years and it really takes a hit when a couple of injuries hit in the same place. I can't tell if we've just been very unlucky (in the last two years we have had real issues at TH, lock and centre) or if we're actually running too small a squad for the modern game. If the latter, I am not sure how we increase it within the salary cap

Is this all a roundabout way of saying we should abandon the style Lancaster is implementing and revert to a forward based plan first and foremost?

Poorfour  yes I do read other posts but injuries are part of the game.

every single side gets injuries but's two clubs in particular who mention them the most - no prizes for guessing which two they are!

When I say someone else needs to take responsibility I am talking about the youngsters too. Leadership and taking responsibility can start at an early stage.

Let's be honest every side needs leaders.

no 7 & 1/2 what is Lancaster's so called style?

You say a forward based plan - surely it's the forwards who set the platform in the first place anyway?  

England's current gameplan showed it's limits in the Ireland game - they failed to score a try.

I would say it's around an athletic pack who are all good passes and comfortable linking with backs, mobile not placing a total emphasis on the set piece but looking to get the backs involved as much as possible with ball in hand as much as possible. Every gameplan has it's limits everyone has lost at some point so I don't think pulling out 1 game is that useful in this respect, especially as we were robbed with that forward pass decision!

Would you like to see a change here is basically my point?

no 7 & 1/2 depends - do we want England to be a lesser version of the ABs style or do we want to carve their own path?

I agree with the sentiment of having a team of 1-15 who are comfortable linking up but it's about balance.

If you try to attack when it's not a good time it makes a team a lot more vulnerable and increases the chances of errors. E.g. a fumbled pass which allows the opposition to pick up and score for an easy 7 pointer.

A pressure game IMO is generally more effective than trying to attack from all areas of the field.

I want England to play intelligently.

I'd rather replicate NZ's style to the same level or better to be honest beshocked. It comes down to what style will get the best out of the players we have. Given the high skill level of the group we have I do want to see Lancaster continue on this route. It's not as if the pressure game of ireland and Saracens is 100% effective either.

1 is definitely better to watch in general though.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 depends - do we want England to be a lesser version of the ABs style or do we want to carve their own path?

I agree with the sentiment of having a team of 1-15 who are comfortable linking up but  it's about balance.

If you try to attack when it's not a good time it makes a team a lot more vulnerable and increases the chances of errors. E.g. a fumbled pass which allows the opposition to pick up and score for an easy 7 pointer.

A pressure game IMO is generally more effective than trying to attack from all areas of the field.

I want England to play intelligently.

That's true - but its about mentality too. NZ let plenty of tries in, but their mantra is to score twice as many at the other end. They play a fast, loose game that does leave them vulnerable sometimes, but its a style they have always employed. Foe England the problem seems to be that successive coaches can't decide which style they want to play and stick to it. England's 2003 WC win came off the back of a 15 man game.

I can agree that an attack when it isn't on leaves you open to counter but I can't agree that a pressure game is more effective at international level (ala Saracens I assume)?

Poorfour wrote:Quins have always prioritised having a mobile scrum over a monster scrummaging unit, and it's rarely been lauded, but when we've had consistent personnel for a period it generally has good stats without being obviously dominant.

We've struggled to replace Olly Kohn, and we've been unlucky that PDJ was almost continuously injured, putting too much pressure on Collier and Sinckler (who both made the Saxons squad in their first senior seasons).

In terms of recruitment, I wouldn't call Horwill and Adam Jones a lack of focus in recruitment, especially given the raw talent coming out of the academy.

I actually think that's underselling it a bit. Something clicked around new year of 11/12 and by the time of the Premiership final, and for a year after that, we had a scrum that was dominant in most games. Took Saracens and Leicester to pieces amongst others. Losing Johnston and Kohn in one go was a hammer blow and they were replaced with a couple of lighter weight players, one of whom retired and the other of whom has been injured for 18 months. Even if Horwill and Jones/Collier/Sinkler turn out well I can't see our scrum returning to what it was any time soon.

no 7 & 1/2 easier said than done. Also England have not yet won anything under Lancaster. Opportunities to win some silverware have been squandered.


I agree the pressure game of Ireland and Saracens is not 100% effective. Those sides needs to add more to their game too. Saracens for example failed to score a try vs Clermont in the ERCC semi - a solution must be found to unlocking the toughest defences. They should have tried something different when a try in the last 20 mins could have won the game. They needed to have a more attacking mentality then.

Every side can improve. You should also adapt to the team you are playing.

We've been close though beshocked, if we'd scored 7 more points this year would that justify Lancaster?

If France had scored the last min move against ireland last year, would that be ok?

Are grand slams the only thing that matter?

Personally I'm pretty pleased where we are currently but just wondered what your thoughts were with your questioning around the stronger scrummaging teams and whetehr you thought over powering was the way to go.

no 7 & 1/2 close yet but not close enough.

England almost won the 2007 RWC final but they did not.

England haven almost got the GS on the last few occasions but have slipped up every time along the road.

Saints almost beat the Leinster in the HC final a few years ago but they did not.

Saracens almost beat Clermont this season in the ERCC semis but did not.


Fine margins.

Yes Grandslams are all that matter yes - it shows you can beat everyone in the NH. It makes you indisputably the best of that year. It makes you a cut above the rest - not fighting it out with others.

Ireland have won the 6 nations twice in a row but I don't think that makes them better than England or Wales because they were crowned winners based on points difference. They lost to Wales this year, England last year - this quite clearly shows they are not unbeatable.

We have been 4th or 5th in the world under Lancaster - it's not bad but where's the improvement in results? I would say England have stayed still despite getting more and more players to choose from.

England's player base is far bigger than that of Ireland and Wales yet we are basically on par with them. IMO England should be clearly above them.

Yes I think England should look to overpower stronger scrummaging teams yes. You physically take on the opposition.

Starts with the forwards.

I happy with the way things are going....the problem I feel with this team is we don't have a plan B or C.

Against Ireland, they controlled the game to a T....but we didn't have the nous or game plan to change that.

The only area I still have issues with (apart from our lack of 12) is the back row. Im just not sure we have the best set up...going for jack of all trades at 6/7. Id like to see some extra muscle in there. But I do like Wood and Robshaw aswell...difficult one.

I'd still say a grand slam doesn't make you the best, you need home and away for that. What would be your ideal team then ignoring the current squad if need be and what players would you like to see brought through, or is it about sticking with some to build experience?

I'd still say England are about where they should be given the players we have. We should continue to get better though.

no 7 & 1/2 it still shows you can beat every team in the 6 nations in one tournament.

Need to develop back up for Tom Youngs at hooker - either LCD or George.

Need to help develop Itoje

Need to have two backline combinations. E.g. if Ford is injured - what's the contingency plan - I don't think Farrell-Barritt is attacking enough obviously.

Also who plays 12 with Ford if Barritt is injured.

Trying out different combinations is important.

As geordiefalcon mentioned - changing the backrow balance.

Perhaps one game try Itoje-Robshaw-Billy backrow.

So not too many changes in personnel on the whole, more a change to a defensive mindset and trying to improve the scrum through coaching.

Scrum is ok.

Defence is poor - Needs fixed.

Indivudal carrying from the pack is poor. Hence why I think a back row rejig is needed as I don't think they'll remove Launchbury or Lawes.

I think once Lawes and Launchbury are back together we should see a big improvement in the pack, they've been missed.

no 7 & 1/2 yes. I would also sack Mike Catt and Andy Farrell post WC unfortunately that won't happen as the RFU has signed them up for the long term.

Set piece - lineout too. T.Youngs needs to make sure his throwing is top notch. The other hookers need to hone their technique too.

Agree with Geordiefalcon.

I’d say England are more ‘improving’ than ‘improved’ tbh. More depth, less glaring weaknesses. But lacking truly world class players in almost every position. A case of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. There’s plenty of promise though. Except for the coaching I believe. I’m still don’t know what our game-plan is. And whatever it is doesn’t seem to be either flexible enough, or committed enough – depending on your POV. Stewie has been slow to develop a settled back line, and has messed about with his ‘universal’ player ideas (see a BR without a no 8, or a back 3 of FBs) for too long – although he seems to have learned his lesson at last. And the backs coaches don’t seem to have any clever moves (not even at re-starts FFS), or cohesive strategy, except for defence (and that only when Barritt plays).

I think this WC is too early for us to win (both in selection & coaching). But in preparation for the next one we absolutely need a world class coaching team.

Think the attack has definitely taken a big step forward myself. Thinking back to that first 6Ns with Lancaster in charge there's been a big change in the backs. Just need to sustain it now. Catt was taking flak so I think he deserves a bit of credit as well.

We still need some stability in the centres. That's the key thing. There has been a lot of changing there due to injuries. If Joseph can stay fit that's one sorted. But still need to figure out what we're doing at 12.

In the pack im actually very happy with .....

1 Marler
2 Youngs
3 Cole
4 Launchbury
5 Lawes

The addition of Youngs over Hartley actually helps in the carrying department.
That front five is solid in the set piece, and good around the park. It just has exceptionally little carrying ability.

I like to put a team under pressure by having a few monsters getting on the ball.

That leaves a dilemma in the back row that will need looked at after the WC as I don't think it'll be change prior to it.

We have lots of genuinely good options...its just picking the right balance.

Who are the options for big carrying? Mako, Brookes, Youngs, Slater, Burgess, Vunipola or Morgan and S Armitage? Not sure there are any youngsters coming through that are quite there yet. We talking about close quarters I take it rather than open spaces cos you could add the likes of Beaumont, Kitchener, Croft though don't think you mean them.

Sinckler I think could carry well but not ready yet.