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)

Jimpy you thought that Ford played better than Sexton when England took on Ireland?

The way I saw things - Ford had a good overall 6 nations but was part of an English team overwhelmed and bullied by Ireland, in particular by Sexton who bossed the game from 10 until his unfortunate injury.

Sexton didn't help his own reputation by playing so poorly against Wales.

Hammerofthunor who wants Robshaw dropped? One of my only criticisms is that I don't think he's the most inspirational captain but he's an important player. Particularly as there are basically no other decent contenders for the 7 shirt.

Not sure if it has been mentioned, but Mike Brown is finally symptom free from concussion and in non-contact training.

beshocked wrote:Jimpy you thought that Ford played better than Sexton when England took on Ireland?

The way I saw things - Ford had a good overall 6 nations but was part of an English team overwhelmed and bullied by Ireland, in particular by Sexton who bossed the game from 10 until his unfortunate injury.

Sexton didn't help his own reputation by playing so poorly against Wales.

Hammerofthunor who wants Robshaw dropped? One of my only criticisms is that I don't think he's the most inspirational captain but he's an important player. Particularly as there are basically no other decent contenders for the 7 shirt.

Is Kvesic not a genuine competition for the shirt?

Poorfour wrote: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.

Poorfour,

This is why I have been arguing for another carrier in the pack. We are lucky we have a high number of guys who graft like hell and do all that stuff well....id include Hartley in the list when he's available...and I think Tom Youngs equally can do that.

So why not free up the 6 spot for a bit more of an impact player who does the...well "flashy" stuff very well.

Youngs, Billy / Morgan and Another would then give you 3 good carriers with Launchbury, Marler, Youngs, Cole, Robshaw all capable of the nitty gritty stuff.

Id even go so far as to say Billy Vunipola puts himself about in those areas aswell....

Geordiefalcon well Ksevic has very little international experience. Robshaw is the captain and out and out first choice 7 for England.

Ksevic will struggle to make the 31 let alone fighting the England captain for the 7 shirt.

The 7 shirt is not a wide open battle - Robshaw is clearly the first choice 7 by some significant distance.

I would love to be proved wrong though - I hope Ksevic gets a chance in the warm ups as a starter.

Saying things repeatedly does not make them true.

Sexton played better than Ford, we can debate how much was down to Ireland's pack playing better on the day as much as we like, but did NOT bully him.

Maybe he was bullied by POM. He was certainly bullied by Itoje, similar to how Palisson was bullied by Lawes.


Now believe it or not, sometimes opponents play better. Ireland were an experienced and very able team playing at home. They played better - it happens. We do not have to like it, but your brand of hysteria and witch hunt cannot be good for your health.

In the words of the man sausage at No10 "Calm down my dear"

Anyway if we want a ball carrier, play billy at 6 and select Morgan, or Waldrom the premierships best carrier last year.

Even if we did select another I bet you that either billy would be used much less, or the extra guy would not be used. Either way we would not see an improvement.

LondonTiger wrote:Saying things repeatedly does not make them true.

Sexton played better than Ford, we can debate how much was down to Ireland's pack playing better on the day as much as we like, but did NOT bully him.

Maybe he was bullied by POM. He was certainly bullied by Itoje, similar to how Palisson was bullied by Lawes.


Now believe it or not, sometimes opponents play better. Ireland were an experienced and very able team playing at home. They played better - it happens. We do not have to like it, but your brand of hysteria and witch hunt cannot be good for your health.

In the words of the man sausage at No10 "Calm down my dear"

Seriously, I've given up, it's a bit like this....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FPgtsohaIs

Anyway, Ed Milliband didn't say that, and he didn't get elected thank feck, so he's not in no 10 ....

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon well Ksevic has very little international experience. Robshaw is the captain and out and out first choice 7 for England.

Ksevic will struggle to make the 31 let alone fighting the England captain for the 7 shirt.

The 7 shirt is not a wide open battle - Robshaw is clearly the first choice 7 by some significant distance.

I would love to be proved wrong though - I hope Ksevic gets a chance in the warm ups as a starter.

I was merely making the point that Robshaw does indeed have competition for his shirt as Kvesic has been very impressive all season in a poor Gloucester side and has started to really show the consistent form he showed all the time for Wuss. He is also a captain....

Now I know he wont be selected as Lancaster will go for multi role players and Kvesic doesn't stand a chance but I personally think he should definitely travel in the squad to the WC as he could easily come on and switch Robshaw to 6 if required.

Which brings us the complete circle.

Probably only 9 spaces for back 5 of the scrum. Seven probably taken by Lawes, Launchbury, Parling, Wood, Robshaw, Billy and Morgan.

So just two spots available - and in all liklihood the two remaining spots will be used on "utility" players. Of course, Kvesic played No8 quite a lot at wuss, but only openside at Glaws.

There's no way he's an international 8 anyway, no matter how much he's played there at club level.

Anyone watching the u20s? We're having a bit of a shocker.

Londontiger what exactly is it you want me to accept? That Ford did not get taught a lesson by a more experienced 10? Sexton got the better of his opposite number - you can call it being bullied or not. I personally think it was because you had a more experienced international 10 who is bigger and stronger than Ford imposing his will.


I remember Sexton smashing Ford, he rattled the young man. He put his mark on the game. Laid down the law. He was the playmaker, he bossed his opposite number.

Ford's restarts in particular were shockingly poor (kick to the same man over and over again and letting him catch the ball).

It was clear to see how much influence Sexton had on the match because Ireland weren't the same when Sexton had to go off.

Doesn't make Ford a bad player - it's just on the day he came up against a player who bossed the match till his departure.

Sexton had one of his best games for Ireland IMO.

Geordiefalcon I thought that Twelvetrees was captain of Gloucester.

What's peoples thoughts on employing Farrell at 12 to support Ford?

I have to admit I was very impressed by Farrell's performance in the Final against Bath and it reminded me of his performances in last years 6Ns. On form he is a winner and an asset to the side so should be included but I don't think at the expense of Ford.

I'm delighted Farrell's form seems to be coming back (if anything, missing the 6N helped him, allowing him to rest and get fully fit again) as it now means we have two strong options at n°10 (and, just as importantly, two options that SL trusts). However, he simply isn't an IC, he's a FH, and should only really be considered there.

A few posts up, LT mentioned 9 spots for lock and backrow players, and indeed you'd expect his named 7 to be there (assuming Morgan fit?). Of the remaining two spots, you'd need at least one to be able to play at 7 (Wood covers in an emergency, but only really in an emergency), which does give Kvesic a look in IMO, though I wouldn't be surprised if it goes to Haskell. You then need another player who at the very least can cover lock. That could be Easter, particularly if doubts remain over Morgan's fitness. It's more likely to be one of Attwood, Kruis, Slater, Itoje (probably in that order, pending training camp obviously).

Am I right in saying it's 31 players for the squad? Or is it 32? 32 allows you to pick 9 front rowers + 9 other forwards + 14 backs. 31 means you'll likely feel (at least) a player light somewhere...

I think there's certainly an argument that on slow ball and where the breakdown is in the middle of the park, having a second fly half who's potentially able to kick or spread the ball down the blindside can be a big benefit. I'm not sure Ford really needs his hand held in terms of orchestrating the attack though.

One thing - as immense as Joseph and Ford were in the 6 Nations, I don't think we can go into world cup games against Wales and Australia with that backline. Our line-speed was a bit rubbish at times and we just didn't seem to have a warrior mentality in defence, particularly against Italy and France. One of Farrell and Barritt at 12 I think would be a big boost in that regard at least.

jamesandimac wrote:What's peoples thoughts on employing Farrell at 12 to support Ford?

I have to admit I was very impressed by Farrell's performance in the Final against Bath and it reminded me of his performances in last years 6Ns.  On form he is a winner and an asset to the side so should be included but I don't think at the expense of Ford.

No. Only in an emergency. He has got some great qualities but next to no running game which means that the defenders can focus on Joseph. I know Burrell was a let down in the 6N but at least he was a potential threat at 12

lostinwales wrote:

jamesandimac wrote:What's peoples thoughts on employing Farrell at 12 to support Ford?

I have to admit I was very impressed by Farrell's performance in the Final against Bath and it reminded me of his performances in last years 6Ns.  On form he is a winner and an asset to the side so should be included but I don't think at the expense of Ford.

No. Only in an emergency. He has got some great qualities but next to no running game which means that the defenders can focus on Joseph. I know Burrell was a let down in the 6N but at least he was a potential threat at 12

Not sure I agree with that. Farrell isn't a crash ball centre and he's not going to run around anyone, but he's quite capable of fixing his man and taking the ball to the line. Also, Ford is a genuine running threat, so the pressure on whoever plays 12 as a runner is reduced. With Farrell and Ford on the pitch, they can swap who plays at first receiver depending on the defensive configuration, and Farrell would offer a second kicking option, which makes it harder for defenders to commit.

I'm not saying it would work, but it's a bit like having a Wilkinson / Catt / Greenwood backline as opposed to Wilkinson / Greenwood / Tindall.

Poorfour wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

jamesandimac wrote:What's peoples thoughts on employing Farrell at 12 to support Ford?

I have to admit I was very impressed by Farrell's performance in the Final against Bath and it reminded me of his performances in last years 6Ns.  On form he is a winner and an asset to the side so should be included but I don't think at the expense of Ford.

No. Only in an emergency. He has got some great qualities but next to no running game which means that the defenders can focus on Joseph. I know Burrell was a let down in the 6N but at least he was a potential threat at 12

Not sure I agree with that. Farrell isn't a crash ball centre and he's not going to run around anyone, but he's quite capable of fixing his man and taking the ball to the line. Also, Ford is a genuine running threat, so the pressure on whoever plays 12 as a runner is reduced. With Farrell and Ford on the pitch, they can swap who plays at first receiver depending on the defensive configuration, and Farrell would offer a second kicking option, which makes it harder for defenders to commit.

I'm not saying it would work, but it's a bit like having a Wilkinson / Catt / Greenwood backline as opposed to Wilkinson / Greenwood / Tindall.

It worked very well with Catt/Wilko in 2003 v Wales when arguably England were going to lose until Catt came on.

We, as fans can argue as much as we like, and boy we will.

However I would hope that at this stage of the 4 year cycle the coaches would pretty much know their best matchday squad - and any competition is merely for backup.

Since about 1993, the England Cricket team have spent about 3 1/2 years preparing for the next WC. 6 months out they thorw all the plans out and start again. Then on the very eve of the competition they make a major change completely out of thye blue. this actually seems to be the model some want us to follow.

Now injuries could well have their say, and Dylan the chump affected things, but Englands first choice squad for the WC will surely look something like:

Marler, Youngs, Cole, Launchbury, Lawes, wood, Robshaw, Billy, Youngs, Ford, Nowell, Barritt, Joseph, Watson, Brown
ANO, Mako, Wilson, Parling, Morgan, Wigglesworth, Farrell, ANO

Much of the debate is surely around the outskirts of the squad and how much versatile players can have the advantage of making the squad.

I am slightly nervous over how Barritt may affect the team. We're starting to look a real threat and don't want us to go backwards here. Not sure he'll improve the teams defence that much and doesn't offer as much going forward and still no back up kicker for Ford really.

That's the team that will pretty much run out LT your spot on...but that's also the team that wont win this WC.....

We're not favourites, and I doubt we would be with any current selection of players, but we do stand a decent chance GF.

GeordieFalcon wrote:That's the team that will pretty much run out LT your spot on...but that's also the team that wont win this WC.....

And therein lies the problem. Somehow this belief that we are front-runners for the WC is out there. We are not. so we as fans are desperatley searching for what will make us top of the pile. We decide we want changes to style and personnel. We are all convinced we know best. Of course we never see the players intraining, we do not watch matches repeatedly to compare players. We do not have the wealth of stats available. We see what we want to see and we have our favourites.

The coaches are not immune from favouritism, but at least it is usually based on a reasonably balanced view. Plus their jobs are on the line. I remember the howls of derision when Corbs was called up to the Lions squad - shrieks of favouritism levelled at Rowntree. Events would indicate that call was correct though. 1-0 to the coaches


Anyway because we are not storming favourites we demand changes to improve the team. thing is generally if you improve one area, you weaken another often catastrophicly. As it is we have a team that (perhaps SA aside) can beat anyone else. This is not to say they will, but over the last four years they have shown they can. We shoudl be favourites to beat wales and Australia at Twickenham. Of course we can lose too, but should be favourites to win. Top the group and then a "relatively easy" 1/4 final looms and all bets are off as anything can happen.


We have to accept we are, in lousy corporate speak, where we are.

As it is we have a team that (perhaps SA aside) can beat anyone else. This is not to say they will, but over the last four years they have shown they can.

LT that's probably the most critical point...and maybe also makes my arguments for a few changes (not wide sweeping changes) redundant in that when at our peak we are an exceptionally good side....but we have a massive issue with inconsistency.

I also think we need a plan B...and THAT involves having a bit more muscle or old school bulk in there or on the bench.

But I do agree with what you say...Lancaster, Rowntree etc are not stupid. They know the crack and also get fed vital info from all the clubs....so they know what is what.

I think the rankings are useful here. Add the 3 for home advantage, and I think we'd be joint second favourites with SA. NZ being a strong favourite. Then Ireland, etc. I think that's about right.

Londontiger we should be one of the frontrunners for the world cup even if currently we are not. That is my belief.

With the resources that England have I believe England should be a frontrunner - the RFU itself is a financial powerhouse - their greatest skill is generating money even if it fuelled by greed.

There is no lack of funding, the coaches have no restrictions in terms of how much time they get with the players, they have access to one of the biggest pools of professional players in the world, England have some of the best youngsters in the world.

England have had one of the top U20s sides in the last few years -The U20s have been able to take on and beat the best in the world (not all the time of course but enough).

I don't believe that there is a lack of talent in England these days - both in terms of coaching and players. It's about utilising that talent properly.

I personally think England should be better than the likes of Ireland and Wales with our resources - not on par.

I would say that Wales and Ireland have been far more effective at wielding their limited resources than we have our resources.

England's so called best coaches are people like Mike Catt and Andy Farrell? Really?

England should also not be repeatedly losing to South Africa.

I believe that England are underachieving - no GS since 2003 is simply not good enough. I don't think England should be satisfied with 4th or 5th in the world.

A semi final is what England should be reaching at least.

With a large pool of players, we should be good at age group rugby, and for the last decade we have consistently made the JWC final. Thing is at senior level you only need 2 or 3 quality players per year.

You seriously over-rate the ability of the players available to England. If we picked a Lions team righ now, based on players ability it is quite possible England would have just 1 or 2 starters. What we have instead is strength in depth. We are less badly hit when injuries occur than some other sides.

Part of the problem is that so often, at club level, our players are over-coached. They have to follow the team plan to the letter, no room for decision making allowed. That works up to a certain level but as teams like Saracens (and Leicester) find out eventually there is a team that can match your physicality and know just how to beat you.

You bang on about resources all the time, but the only important resource is the quality of players - and ours are good, some very good, but not great.

Farrell and Catt may not be the best coaches in the world - but I am willing to bet their knowledge ans skill is light years ahead of any on these boards.

I think Englands inconsistency is down to injuries. We have Corbisiero, Croft, Tuilagi and Morgan who are either long-term or highly injury prone. Launchbury and Cole missed most of the last year of international matches. Brown had a serious injury in the last tournament, where we were also without Barrett, Farrell and Wilson for all and Lawes, Parling and Wood for some. When you go from one international series to another, three months apart, with only 9 players keeping their place it makes a difference. I would say most teams are probably 11/ 12 players the same. This is the difference between being competitive - which we are - and winning, which we aren't.

I know people will go on about strength in depth/ 12 teams to choose from, but first choice is still first choice. Experience can count for a lot. Unless you're Haskell or Hartley.

Londontiger you think I overrate the ability of players available to England? I don't.

I just think it's about utilising the players properly. That's about using the bench properly too.

80 minute game need to be prepared for all eventualities.


Only 1 or 2 starters for the Lions? Disagree.


I agree actually that sometimes our players are over-coached - that happens at international level too.....

Disagree about quality of players being the only important resource. If that was the case then Fiji and Samoa would do much better. They have very good players but they don't have the same advantages that England do.

Case in point the Barbarians being stuffed by England - 73-12. Individually player for player - Barbarians were probably the better team but didn't have the same preparation.....


England's 2003 RWC wasn't just down to the players that Sir Clive had. Preparation is so important obviously. Kicking,conditioning, making sure the players were mentally and physically prepared,Tactics etc.

Making the tactical change to bring on Catt for example.

Farrell and Catt might have more knowledge and skill than us but then that's their job plus they access to stats and resources that we don't.

Doesn't mean I think they are the best men for the job.

Also England will have another resource in their favour in the RWC - home advantage.

You should utilise every advantage in your armoury.

MichaelT sounds like a poor excuse IMO.

Injuries and absentees create opportunities for others.

Farrell's injury allowed Ford to stake his claim and he's taken the 10 shirt for his own.

Hartley's ban could lead to an emergence for LCD or George - hopefully.

Tuilagi's long term absence has meant that Joseph has had an opportunity.

Corbisiero has not been missed with Marler and Mako performing admirably.

Billy had a great 6 nations in Morgan's absence.

Croft is not first choice anyway.

England are a country who should be able to shrug off injuries like they are a small inconvenience because of the large player pool.

MichaelT wrote:I think Englands inconsistency is down to injuries. We have Corbisiero, Croft, Tuilagi and Morgan who are either long-term or highly injury prone. Launchbury and Cole missed most of the last year of international matches. Brown had a serious injury in the last tournament, where we were also without Barrett, Farrell and Wilson for all and Lawes, Parling and Wood for some. When you go from one international series to another, three months apart, with only 9 players keeping their place it makes a difference. I would say most teams are probably 11/ 12 players the same. This is the difference between being competitive - which we are - and winning, which we aren't.

I know people will go on about strength in depth/ 12 teams to choose from, but first choice is still first choice. Experience can count for a lot. Unless you're Haskell or Hartley.

I think the issue with the injuries we had was how we adapted to the replacements (or didn't). Cole and Corbisiero were both extremely active at the ruck, certainly more so (I think) than Marler/Mako and Wilson. This meant that our flankers could focus on tackling. When Wilson came in we didn't adjust the pack in anyway to compensate for the difference between Cole and Wilson. Perhaps we should have brought in a flanker to specialise in this area more. This got worse when Launchbury was replaced by Attwood. Similar issue with the backs, injuries happen, different type of player is brought in and they try and make them play the same way.

Sometimes this is needed, because you don't want to shift your entire team based on the availability of one player but sometimes that simply will not work.

Organisation is not a resource. Money is, and helps. Player numbers is, and helps. But both are useless if the primary resource being player quality is not at the highest level.

England are a country who should be able to shrug off injuries like they are a small inconvenience because of the large player pool.

And generally they do. The replacements come in and perform just as well as the injured players. And therein lies the crux. We have excellent depth of good players, very few world class players.

For me, and mainly down to injuries or lack of options in other countries, only Dan Cole and Jonathan Joseph would walk into a Lions team should one be selected today. Plenty on here would argue I should remove Cole from that list.

Beshocked I don't see having injured players as an excuse even if their replacement have done well and added depth.
I think you underestimate the difference having the same 15/23 for good 10 matches would make. I don't think we've seen this yet but it would make a huge difference in defence and attack.
Also having the likes of tuilagi wood Farrell Morgan would made a difference even of the bench.

beshocked wrote:MichaelT sounds like a poor excuse IMO.

Injuries and absentees create opportunities for others.

Farrell's injury allowed Ford to stake his claim and he's taken the 10 shirt for his own.

Hartley's ban could lead to an emergence for LCD or George - hopefully.

Tuilagi's long term absence has meant that Joseph has had an opportunity.

Corbisiero has not been missed with Marler and Mako performing admirably.

Billy had a great 6 nations in Morgan's absence.

Croft is not first choice anyway.

England are a country who should be able to shrug off injuries like they are a small inconvenience because of the large player pool.

Thats why I said we remain competitive, but aren't winning anything. For example, Vunipola might have been great this year, but last Autumn wasn't was he?

Do you really think that consistency of selection doesn't make a difference - that there isn't a bedding in period when players get their first caps compared to someone who was there for the previous year? We've lost the last 3 Six Nations on points difference. Thats a very small margin. And the injuries to me are the difference.

2nd row injuries certainly did this year.

Londontiger a well prepared and organised team can beat a higher rated team on paper.

Look at Exeter for example - they did the double over the likes of Saracens and Saints in the AP despite having less higher profile players.

Organisation is a resource. You can hire the best coaches, get in the best gear and tools for the job. The latest gizmos to give your team that extra edge. E.g. chambers that help with conditioning.

The backroom staff do a vital job too but they don't perhaps get the credit they deserve.

Tactics and adapting to circumstances count for a lot. Also interpretations to a certain ref for example.

Also of course top class coaching and preparation can make players better.

Look at the sprint work done by Margot Wells on Brown - turned him into a more complete player.


England have beaten NZ, they have shown they have the capability - it's one game sure but on that day they made the best team in the world look mortal.


I certainly think there are areas England can improve upon but I think the potential is there.


wilco84 luck is a fickle mistress. You can't rely on it. Injuries are part of the game, need to be able to adapt.

Beshocked, did that England side, mostly from outside the squad really have much time together? It seemed to me that they just gelled a lot quicker than the Barbarians

I agree about the amount of Lions england world probably have the 6N stats mentrioned earlier in the thread showed England top in most departments.

MichaelT, agree completely SL has been hard hi with injuries, particularly in the backline where through no fault of his own he has struggled to play the same lineup two games in a row until this 6N.

GF we tried putting a lump in the 2nd row this 6N, Attwood. It didn't work Slater might be a better option, but SL did try it with the best resource that was available at the time.

On defence, England were a bit sloppy against Italy, but against France they were chasing the impossible and had little choice but to throw caution to the wind. It wa still one of the best game sof rugby I have ever seen.

I don't like the idea of BV at 6, it might work for Sarries, but at international level he doesn't have the pace to get about the field like Wood or Robshaw. If he tried, I suspect the much vaunted fitness levels he has now achieved would be sorely tested. His best work is done close to the breakdown where he tackles and carries extremely well.

Disagree that Wood is an emergency 7, he is a regular 7 for Saints and was the likely captain of England as a 7 before it went to Robshaw by default when Wood got injured. Everyone keeps aying that he and Robshaw are too much alike, that says it all, both can play 6 or 7 equally well.

Injuries affect cohesion, we might have the players to come in and play equally well, but that often requires changes in tactics, Manu/Joseph for example and the intuition that grows when players have had 20 or thirty games together is not there when a side is chopped and changed. The gamepland SL imposes is governed by the players he can put on the field. It is not changed on a weekly basis because he fancies a change.

One of the issues with injury over the last couple of years is how much it seems to have affected selection in certain positions.

This season we've had an issue with 2nd rowers, putting us so deep into the squad depth as to not have a specialist amongst the replacements in most of the 6Ns games - I appreciate that to some extent that was also a tactical decision, but I'm pretty sure if Lawes and Launchbury had bee fit for the Wales game Easter would not have been on the bench.

Previoulsy we've had issues with props (which I think is somewhat inevitable in the modern game), and have been lucky to find that our 2nd and 3rd string choices have done a good to sometimes excellent job.

Last year's 6Ns we were short of wingers, meaning that Nowell and May were selected. Nowell has taken a while but developed well into the role, while May seems to divide opinion and has been supplanted in the side by Watson. I think though he does still have an international future, especially if Watson moves to FB after the RWC.

The biggest issue though has been injuries at centre - remember in the AIs 2013 we were down to having Joel Tomkins at 13. We just haven't had the continuity of available players to establish the best pairing. Fortunately though, we finally got back to JJ, who has at least a solid grip on the 13 jersey.

Actually, I agree with LT's take on our chances - we have a good team who have the capability to produce some very good performances. Can't be ruled out of winning any one-off game, but are not quite at the level of consistency to be favourites, and it will be a surprise if we can pull off consecutive victories against SA and NZ - I'd say we have maybe a 1 in 5 chance in each game, so 1 in 25 combined.

I know this is a bit of a throwback comment but I get fed up of Lions selection being an absolute rank of quality. 

I think it has been at times in the past (and that the best players in the British isles will mostly be going), but these days they are generally the best set of players to play the way the coaches want to, rather than choosing the best players then finding an approach afterwards

dummy_half wrote:Actually, I agree with LT's take on our chances - we have a good team who have the capability to produce some very good performances. Can't be ruled out of winning any one-off game, but are not quite at the level of consistency to be favourites, and it will be a surprise if we can pull off consecutive victories against SA and NZ - I'd say we have maybe a 1 in 5 chance in each game, so 1 in 25 combined.

I agree with all you've said, but regarding this bit - who would be capable of beating SA and NZ in consecutive matches? And apart from England in 2002, has anyone ever done that?

So my point is nobody has a history of doing that, so we are on the same level as everyone else in that regard.

Well, if things go according to current form, won't South Africa face NZ in one semi and England face Ireland in the other? Not that beating Ireland is easy, but at least England have done it at Twickenham in the recent past.

Poorfour wrote:Well, if things go according to current form, won't South Africa face NZ in one semi and England face Ireland in the other? Not that beating Ireland is easy, but at least England have done it at Twickenham in the recent past.

Correct

All the talk in the press is about our centre combination and how Lancaster has tried 12 different combo's and doesn't know his arse from his elbow!

I'd argue that he knows exactly what his best combo is and that Barrit and Tuilagi would be nailed on if it wasn't for Injury!

Whilst were unlikely to win the World Cup by picking Farrell Barrit and Nowell and other defensive minded players we haven't got a hope in hell of winning it with Ford Eastmond and May!

I say stick it up the jumper, dig in with grit and try to get as far as we can like in 2007

TIger/Chief

I think a midfield of Ford, Barritt, Joseph is nicely balanced considering many of those we've had in the past.

Barritt isn't everyones cup of tea but he could work very nicely as a contrast to Ford and Joseph.

At least our wingers should see the ball...

Ah, but I read that T/C wants Farrell ahead of Ford.

I actually do like Farrell when on top form...but I feel Ford offers more.

Maybe next season Burns will step up again and challenge what you think LT?

Burns played pretty well in the second half of the season, and should hopefully start strongly next season. He was seriousley hindered by never having an IC partner for any run of games - and the fact we seemed to have no idea how to attack so everything was on his shoulders.

I would say he ended the season on better form than 13/14 - and he did well enough for us in NZ. However even if Myler and Cipriani are not considered post RWC, burns will still be 4th choice.

Tiger/Chief the problem is that Barritt-Tuilagi centre combo wasn't that great IMO.

Both are good players but as a combo I didn't think it performed well enough together - the exception was of course the NZ game.

I think both players would have been better partnered with others.

I agree with you that Nowell would be preferable to May, Barritt to Eastmond but I think England need to stick with Ford.

Geordiefalcon I agree - I think Ford-Barritt-Joseph could well work.

Farrell worked really well with an in form Care in the 2014 6 nations but Care is not in form.

Care-Farrell was an excellent 9-10 combo.

Nowell has forced his way to the top of the winger list but I'd have May instead of Watson

I assume in the warm ups and pool games Farrell, Barritt, Joseph and Burrell will all be given game time alongside Ford.

The key for the coaches will be picking from those games and not like we are, on form from months ago and bias.