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)

Yeah heavy duty carriers...

I also wonder how much some guys like that help in rucks and mauls. Big unmoveable lumps.

Too much emphasis is being put on huge ball carriers in England's pack, off the top of my head I can't think of many top international teams( with exception of SA) with a team full of huge carriers. I reckon  3 good carriers in the pack and one back is generally enough. Lancaster should be making sure the pack looks for the gaps instead of continuous contact in hope of wearing a team down too many mismatches or being missed. This is the difference between Billy and Ben for me and the reason I rate Morgan the much superior player.
So with youngs, Billy/ Ben were probably only lacking one good carrier.

For me I'd look at another 6 besides Wood in a warm up game, hopefully he comes back to his best but he really hasn't stood out for sometime. Yes I know he does a lot of 'unseen' work and runs around a lot but sometimes I just want to actually see him smash ten bells out of someone or carry the ball, basically what a 6 is supposed to do.

I honestly have missed Launchbury so much I think I'm a bit giddy at the prospect of him coming back. I'll calm down and go back to British stoicism in a minute.

wilco84 wrote:Too much emphasis is being put on huge ball carriers in England's pack, off the top of my head I can't think of many top international teams( with exception of SA) with a team full of huge carriers. I reckon  3 good carriers in the pack and one back is generally enough. Lancaster should be making sure the pack looks for the gaps instead of contact in hope of wearing a team down. This is the difference between Billy and Ben for me and the reason I rate Morgan the much superior player.
So with youngs, Billy/ Ben were probably only lacking one good carrier.

Name them....

You still need some old fashioned mass and muscle in there in my opinion.

little_badger wrote:For me I'd look at another 6 besides Wood in a warm up game, hopefully he comes back to his best but he really hasn't stood out for sometime. Yes I know he does a lot of 'unseen' work and runs around a lot but sometimes I just want to actually see him smash ten bells out of someone or carry the ball, basically what a 6 is supposed to do.

I honestly have missed Launchbury so much I think I'm a bit giddy at the prospect of him coming back. I'll calm down and go back to British stoicism in a minute.

Amen brother!!

Well a 'genuine 6' is now available in Burgess.

There's the problem we have probably only got two in youngs and billy/ben. If Burgess gets up to speed then that's 3 or maybe wilson. Are there that many huge carriers in England who's good enough? If there are it would have to come at 6  as I can't see 2nd row being 2 out of parling lawes and Launchbury. At 6 there's Haskell who doesn't t bring it enough, ewers don't think he's ready yet can't think of many others that are good enough.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well a 'genuine 6' is now available in Burgess.

He's not the messiah yet .....

Surely someone like Ewers has earned it more....

I'd gamble on Burgess being ready as his carrying and tackling are top class which could be the difference

I don't care whether Ewers has been around longer, Burgess could actually be top top class.

That's the thing from what I've seen and heard from ewers he probably won't let anybody down i don't see him as a game changer while Burgess definitely is

wilco84 wrote:That's the thing from what I've seen and heard from ewers he probably won't let anybody down i don't see him as a game changer while Burgess definitely is

Er hello. In league that's a given, there is absolutely no evidence that he is a game changer in union.

He would give the number 8 a help with the carrying.

And in Marler, Cole, Youngs, Launchbury, Lawes, Robshaw and indeed Billy you have people who do the nitty gritty stuff well. So it could work.

Gwlad wrote:

wilco84 wrote:That's the thing from what I've seen and heard from ewers he probably won't let anybody down i don't see him as a game changer while Burgess definitely is

Er hello. In league that's a given, there is absolutely no evidence that he is a game changer in union.

I don't think that much difference in carrying between league and union. Everything else Is different but he's picking it up rapidly now and its the part of his game he's already good at that makes people exited about him

The wisdom of the board states that England are unbalanced and need a big, heavy traffic ball carrier at 6. Some thoughts:

1) when did we last do this?
2) Which top teams, int and club do this?
3) If we had one we would not use the option. Plenty of guys in the team who do this for their clubs - bit we only use Billy
4) Would what we gain compensate for what we lose?
5) Try to imagine a lineout with Launchbury (never thrown to), Burgess (has lineoutophobia), Robshaw (barely used at int level) and BillyV (need Caterpillar to get him off the ground)

You could try a back row in warm-up of Burgess wood Billy. Wood brings much the same as robshaw but solves lineout problem

wilco84 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

wilco84 wrote:That's the thing from what I've seen and heard from ewers he probably won't let anybody down i don't see him as a game changer while Burgess definitely is

Er hello. In league that's a given, there is absolutely no evidence that he is a game changer in union.

I don't think that much difference in carrying between league and union. Everything else Is different but he's picking it up rapidly now and its the part of his game he's already good at that makes people exited about him

This is genius! Do hope someone tells Stewie. This explains everything. he was a game changer in League so obviously, carrying being the same and all other things equal, he will be a game changer in union. I think not, or at least not yet.

In league contact is king. Not so in Union where finding the gap and quick ball are far more important than taking on defenders. Of course there is no difference in carrying; the ball is the same, you catch it and run straight. That Burgess can carry a rugby ball is not the issue. It si every other aspect of the game that has defeated almost every other attempted transplant and Burgess is a country mile from being a union game changer. In fact, name a back row game changer known for carrying, i can think of one and he is not a contact merchant.

Where does Burgess fit in? England have a lot back-row players, and centre might be problematic for him given Union is less direct (especially Vs the SH). Winger....?

I'm not saying he's world class and is going to change the way England play but there's aspects of his game that could and his carrying is not there yet but they rate he's improving he would be worth the gamle

LondonTiger wrote:The wisdom of the board states that England are unbalanced and need a big, heavy traffic ball carrier at 6. Some thoughts:

1) when did we last do this?
2) Which top teams, int and club do this?
3) If we had one we would not use the option. Plenty of guys in the team who do this for their clubs - bit we only use Billy
4) Would what we gain compensate for what we lose?
5) Try to imagine a lineout with Launchbury (never thrown to), Burgess (has lineoutophobia), Robshaw (barely used at int level) and BillyV (need Caterpillar to get him off the ground)

The last point does highlight that Burgess is to be used in the lineout and would have to offer something but no one is near Wood on this. Think you re selling Launchbury and robshaw short there though both have been part of a very successful England lineout.

Launchbury is many things, but atm he is not an option often used at lineout.

He played 11 tests in 2013/14 season. Across those tests he took a total of 14 lineouts with zero steals.


Robshaw is skilled, but again rarely used.

Neither are average though. The line out would still be decent. If Wood goes down now it would be Haskell Burgess or Kvesic maybe at a push Itoje. The only 1 i dont want is Haskell. Consistently inconsistent.

I seem to remember seeing Robshaw take a few when they have been high pressure lineouts. Sort of 'I'm the captain and I'll take the responsibility' type things

LondonTiger wrote:The wisdom of the board states that England are unbalanced and need a big, heavy traffic ball carrier at 6. Some thoughts:

1) when did we last do this?
2) Which top teams, int and club do this?
3) If we had one we would not use the option. Plenty of guys in the team who do this for their clubs - bit we only use Billy
4) Would what we gain compensate for what we lose?
5) Try to imagine a lineout with Launchbury (never thrown to), Burgess (has lineoutophobia), Robshaw (barely used at int level) and BillyV (need Caterpillar to get him off the ground)

I agree. Some posters have an obsession with chunky ball-carriers, but I'd say overall England are as good any international pack (in fact England have a couple of packs worth of players who would be competitive against any international side). I can't remember anyone carrying particularly effectively against England in the last 12 months. The line out is far more important than adding a couple of 10 metre carriers per game.

I agree, it's more a problem that guys like Mako, Marler, Attwood, Wilson and Cole all dont carry when they do play! Then it's a problem because we're missing a carrier. Rowntree and Lancastet need to get the incumbents carrying more often and effectively before we change things up.

yappysnap wrote:I agree, it's more a problem that guys like Mako, Marler, Attwood, Wilson and Cole all dont carry when they do play! Then it's a problem because we're missing a carrier. Rowntree and Lancastet need to get the incumbents carrying more often and effectively before we change things up.

That's true - but I wonder why it is. All of these guys carry a lot at club level. It can't just be a question of them being told not to carry - that would just be dumb, and however much you dislike Lancaster and his team, he's not that dumb - so why don't we see that impact at international level?

There's probably an element of fitness. Martin Johnson famously claimed that international rugby is significantly more intense than club rugby, and the fitness demands for top level scrummaging and lineout work are quite different for those for carrying. So to some extent we should expect less dramatic carrying from them at international level than we do from back rows and centres.

A second factor is that international defences are better. The players that make big holes in defences tend to be the carriers who look freakish at club level - Morgan and Tuilagi among them. It seems to me that there's quite a sharp drop-off in impact once you get a notch or two below that level, because defences are strong enough to contain them.

When defences are good, you make yards by pulling them out of shape. Players like Marler and Wilson still look to me to be carrying quite a lot, but they are generally seeking out traffic rather than trying to avoid it. I suspect that England are trying to use their heavy carriers to suck in a couple of extra defenders in order to create space out wide. Given that we now have a fly half who stands flat and attacks the line and an OC who can pass, that seems like a sensible tactic.

wilco84

no 7 & 1/2 strange thing about Haskell is I thought he looked good in the Wales game when he helped Billy with the carrying responsibilities but in the subsequent games he didn't do as much which consequently led to a drop in impact.

Haskell actually outshone the more subdued Billy in the Wales game. Though in the rest of the 6 nations I think Billy was the best forward in the England side.

Wasn't impressed with Haskell in the 6 nations bar the Wales game but he'll be in the England squad because he covers 6,7 and 8 plus he is experienced.


I want England to try Itoje as a back up to Wood -he would add another lineout jumper to the team, he's similar size to Burgess and is powerful himself. Also he's a more technical player than Burgess having been involved in rugby union for longer.

This show of power is great.

http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/04/4233/maro-itojes-great-catch-and-powerful-dont-argue-on-julien-bardy

I've lost patience with Haskell. Throughout his career he's had those stand out moments/games. He can clearly produce in one offs but has never done it consistently, he's more than likely to follow up a great game with a run of dross and stupid decisions.

Lancaster obviously has the chance now to have a look at the other options up close for a while. They'll surely get a run out from the bench. Still think Itoje will be seen as a lock that can cover 6 which is why I can't see him going to the WC. He does remind me of Lawes in many ways.

Well I maybe the odd one out here.. but I think having forwards who can really carry at this level is essential...

Barely any in the pack actually contribute to the required level in my opinion...or to the level we believe they are capable of.

No 7 & 1/2 I agree.

It was frustating watching Haskell play so well in the Wales game bar his stupid missed tackle on Toby then play so poorly in the rest of the tournament.

Makes you wonder if it was team instructions that made him ineffectual.

Sometimes I wonder about that in general - if Lancaster and co actually do get the best from the players....

E.g. certain players have skills they utilise at club level but for whatever reason don't at international level.

E.g. Goode as a playmaker and 1st receiver, Ashton and his tracking of the ball, Twelvetrees and his so call playmaking skillset, numerous players as ball carriers.

Geordiefalcon it's all about balance. You want players who can give go forward but also you need the jackals and those who do the "unseen" work - whatever that might be.

People praise Launchbury for his "unseen" work but can anyone explain what this "unseen" work is? Why is he seen as so important?

I agree carrying is important but needs to be effective and serve a purpose. Also the carrier needs to be protected.

Launchbury-Lawes is supposedly the dream team at 2nd row but why? Why is it seen as so impressive?

You forget about his running into a post! That was in his best game and that 7 points was kind of important in the end!

Think it's quicker to pick out what Lawes and Launchbury aren't good at. Retakes needs a fair bit of work for me. Think I'm done.

Its time to forget about 'Brand' Haskell and let him tan himself on a beach somewhere.

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2 I agree.

It was frustating watching Haskell play so well in the Wales game bar his stupid missed tackle on Toby then play so poorly in the rest of the tournament.

Makes you wonder if it was team instructions that made him ineffectual.

Sometimes I wonder about that in general - if Lancaster and co actually do get the best from the players....

E.g. certain players have skills they utilise at club level but for whatever reason don't at international level.

E.g. Goode as a playmaker and 1st receiver, Ashton and his tracking of the ball, Twelvetrees and his so call playmaking skillset, numerous players as ball carriers.

Geordiefalcon it's all about balance. You want players who can give go forward but also you need the jackals and those who do the "unseen" work - whatever that might be.

People praise Launchbury for his "unseen" work but can anyone explain what this "unseen" work is?  Why is he seen as so important?

I agree carrying is important but needs to be effective and serve a purpose. Also the carrier needs to be protected.

Launchbury-Lawes is supposedly the dream team at 2nd row but why? Why is it seen as so impressive?

I can't agree more about Haskell. 

During the Wales game I honestly thought he had turned corner and was ready to play consistently well in the England shirt. But in reality, he was pretty woeful for the rest of the tournament. His carrying especially took a nose dive. I think he'll make the WC squad, and I think he'll actually make the 23, but I don't think he's done enough to earn himself a starting spot. Like someone above said, I think he'll be there simply because he offers cover for a number of positions off the bench. 

My interpretation of this 'unseen' work is that is refers to breakdown or rucking. Stuff that casual viewers don't particularly pay attention to, or work that isn't particularly flashy. Effective counter-rucking and just making a general nuisance or yourself at a ruck or maul is a powerful tool. Launchbury is excellent over the ball and secures a number of turnovers, he hits almost every ruck, he defends rolling mauls exceptionally well, and he disrupts in the line out too. On top of this 'unseen' work, he tackles hard all day, rarely misses a tackle, covers an inordinate amount of ground for a second row, is comfortable running from anywhere on the pitch, and also shows deft hands. 

Anyway, the interpretation of 'unseen' work is entirely subjective. It depends on the viewer and what part of the game interests you most. Personally, I grew up playing flanker, so I take a lot of interest in the old rucks and mauls. Everyone will be different though.

I'm with bluestonevedder - unseen work isn't a specific skill but it's the simple, effective, non-flashy stuff that makes the rest of the team more effective. It's securing ball at your own rucks, slowing it down at your opponents'. It's making tackles on the gain line - not the big hits, but just repeatedly frustrating the opposition attack. It's being in the right place at the right time. It's making good decisions over and over again.

It's the stuff you don't notice at the time but, as Conor O'Shea says, you notice on replay and think "I can't believe how much work he got through."

Richard Hill was the past master of this. You rarely noticed him in games, but you noticed how the team's performance fell in his absence.

England have a surprising number of players like that - Launchbury, Robshaw, Wood and Cole (and in recent games Marler - with his new, sensible haircut I kept mistaking him for Robshaw in the 6N). Brown and Barritt are the equivalent in the backs.

It does raise the question of whether that creates space for something different; I think that might be Burgess's window of opportunity. A pack with Robshaw, Launchbury, Cole and Marler in it might be able to function without Wood - if they can crack their lineout options.

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2 I agree.

It was frustating watching Haskell play so well in the Wales game bar his stupid missed tackle on Toby then play so poorly in the rest of the tournament.

Makes you wonder if it was team instructions that made him ineffectual.

Sometimes I wonder about that in general - if Lancaster and co actually do get the best from the players....

E.g. certain players have skills they utilise at club level but for whatever reason don't at international level.

E.g. Goode as a playmaker and 1st receiver, Ashton and his tracking of the ball, Twelvetrees and his so call playmaking skillset, numerous players as ball carriers.

Geordiefalcon it's all about balance. You want players who can give go forward but also you need the jackals and those who do the "unseen" work - whatever that might be.

People praise Launchbury for his "unseen" work but can anyone explain what this "unseen" work is?  Why is he seen as so important?

I agree carrying is important but needs to be effective and serve a purpose. Also the carrier needs to be protected.

Launchbury-Lawes is supposedly the dream team at 2nd row but why? Why is it seen as so impressive?

Was that the one where Dai Falatau had entered the breakdown from a blatantly offside position and picked up the ball - Haskell was probably in shock that it wasn't blown up.

bluestonevedder fair points.

Also Haskell's discipline was atrocious vs Ireland. Wasn't it 3 penalties given away?

England's penalty count was very poor that day with Haskell and Attwood top on the naughty list.

It was me who mentioned the covered positions. The issue is that though Haskell can cover 6,7 and 8 he's not exactly someone who I would be confident in.

Thanks for answering my question about Launchbury. Though again it comes back to this balance. We know the England pack is a hardworking one but is there enough grunt? Perhaps with the likes of Wood and Launchbury back it's unnecessary we'll see but a Plan B is always nice if things aren't working out.

Areas I thought England were very poor in the 6 nations - defence and discipline.

Perhaps Barritt in the centres will shore up the backs and the likes of Launchbury and Wood will do so in the backs.

Have to hope so.

2,6 and 12 - all liable back ups for Youngs,Wood and Barritt need to be found.

I am intrigued to see the magic wand of Barritt in the backs shoring up our defence.

Jimpy surely you have to play to the whistle?

It's like when 9's quick tap - you have to be alert to the danger.

Poorfour surely with Youngs starting at hooker you don't want to reduce the lineout options too much!

Hartley - Lawes-Wood have an understanding being at the same club but Youngs has no 2nd rows or backrowers to call upon for help except if Parling starts.

Perhaps that's where the argument for Slater does have at least one point in it's favour - it would give Youngs a fellow Tiger who could help him.

Jimpy wrote:Was that the one where Dai Falatau had entered the breakdown from a blatantly offside position and picked up the ball - Haskell was probably in shock that it wasn't blown up.

Actually, it was an illegal pickup from the middle of a collapsing scrum, so it could have been blown up on two different counts. But it wasn't, and Haskell should have been playing to the whistle. That said, it was a pretty unexpected move and hard to react to if you're heads-down and pushing in the scrum.

For all the talk of of Haskell playing poorly after that game, he was still rated the highest ranked blind side in the 6Ns by Accenture and Opta using their statistical wizardry.

Londontiger have you got a link?

No, not any more, but anyone who paid attention to all the team of the tournament posts would have seen the links then.

From memory sine posted them.

Seems I lied, he dropped from 2nd best Flanker after 4 rounds to 4th best (second BS) after the French game:

http://www.rugby.net/s/gR9Y4oX5JwX#Tx:c=5162199223894016&s=6168176664510464&g=5818817137606656&m=5479506668158976&q=6697086410031104

And Robshaw (who quite a lot people want to see dropped) was top of the tree? Clearly he's spending too much time as a flanker and not enough time as a traditional open side.

The rugby net has its own scoring mechanism, which delivers some interesting results:

6N Scores

Methodology

Brown cleared for training.

beshocked wrote:Jimpy surely you have to play to the whistle?

Poorfour wrote:

Jimpy wrote:Was that the one where Dai Falatau had entered the breakdown from a blatantly offside position and picked up the ball - Haskell was probably in shock that it wasn't blown up.

Actually, it was an illegal pickup from the middle of a collapsing scrum, so it could have been blown up on two different counts. But it wasn't, and Haskell should have been playing to the whistle. That said, it was a pretty unexpected move and hard to react to if you're heads-down and pushing in the scrum.

I know.... it was a sarcastic comment in light of the fact that however 'at fault' Haskell may have been, the illegal play was just as bad (and actually led to a try didn't it?)

Poorfour wrote:The rugby net has its own scoring mechanism, which delivers some interesting results:

6N Scores

Methodology

Chris Robshaw* top? must be a fault in the methodology.

(* I am so glad we have him)

lostinwales wrote:

Poorfour wrote:The rugby net has its own scoring mechanism, which delivers some interesting results:

6N Scores

Methodology

Chris Robshaw* top? must be a fault in the methodology.

(* I am so glad we have him)

Looking at those stats, England are pretty much leading every category other than in the second row. 

Good to see the 2 top props were Cole and Marler too! 

Ford was streets ahead of any other fly half.

bluestonevedder wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Poorfour wrote:The rugby net has its own scoring mechanism, which delivers some interesting results:

6N Scores

Methodology

Chris Robshaw* top? must be a fault in the methodology.

(* I am so glad we have him)

Looking at those stats, England are pretty much leading every category other than in the second row. 

Good to see the 2 top props were Cole and Marler too! 

Ford was streets ahead of any other fly half.

Excet when he was being bullied by Sexton (apparently)