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 sincerely hope England don't play Farrell at 12.

You've got to think Twelvetrees, Eastmond and Slade will be in the mix as well, maybe even Burgess if you believe the papers. They can't all be included in 3 warm ups is it (?), so training will be important.

Burgess vs Fiji would be fun

Yeah, still wouldn't have him anywhere near the squad for centre.

beshocked wrote:I sincerely hope England don't play Farrell at 12.

I sincerely hope they don't start with him at 10 either...

No 7&1/2 wrote:You've got to think Twelvetrees, Eastmond and Slade will be in the mix as well, maybe even Burgess if you believe the papers. They can't all be included in 3 warm ups is it (?), so training will be important.

Ah 7.5 my morning was going so well....till my eyes stumbled on that. I really hope he doesn't make it...he's just not good enough simple as that.

I disagree with almost everyone in that I doubt they will be looking too much at the warm-ups to decide the squad. I really hope they do not either. Far too often, in too many sports across England, someone has a single good performance on the eve of the tournament and is parachuted into a team. It has never worked so far.

I want the coaches going into those warm-up games knowing what their first choice starting XV is, probably knowing what the bench would be and sure on most of the back-up members of the squad. that way the matches can be used to actually prepare for the RWC rather than being a series of trial games.

Jimpy I agree - I don't want Farrell starting at 10 either.

Londontiger injuries happen - that has already been discussed in length. The warm ups will be crucial in deciding the 23.

You might know the XV but not the 23.

Whose your back up hooker for example?

GeordieFalcon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You've got to think Twelvetrees, Eastmond and Slade will be in the mix as well, maybe even Burgess if you believe the papers. They can't all be included in 3 warm ups is it (?), so training will be important.

Ah 7.5 my morning was going so well....till my eyes stumbled on that. I really hope he doesn't make it...he's just not good enough simple as that.

He is, he's proved he can be a steady option for England. He's never a horrendous game, he's never had an amazing game. Anyone we're picking at 12 currently isn't ideal. Slade could go on to become that but he's more likely going to the WC as the utility player.

beshocked wrote:Jimpy I agree - I don't want Farrell starting at 10 either.

Londontiger injuries happen - that has already been discussed in length. The warm ups will be crucial in deciding the 23.

You might know the XV but not the 23.

Whose your back up hooker for example?

That is the single position most up for grabs, yet still I hope that they use the training blocs they have between now and the warm-ups to decide who it probably is, rather than using those matches. Sure they can decide to drop someone who is having shocking performances.


Overall though these matches need to be about getting the team into the best possible place to get out of the group. This will mean some players in the 50 man squad do not get a game - so be it.

The first choice XV need to have at least one game together. Then we need to ensure that players likely to be in the 31 man squad have a run out and combinations that have looked good in training are tested in a real game (well as real as these games can be).


What I do not want is for 4 years of development to be thrown out completely and replaced with 3 trial games where everyone gets a go.

LondonTiger wrote:What I do not want is for 4 years of development to be thrown out completely and replaced with 3 trial games where everyone gets a go.

IIRC, Lancaster said in almost so many words that the first warm-up would essentially be a trial game for the contenders for backup slots, but that he expected the remaining two to be pretty much the preferred XXIII playing against the equivalent for France and Ireland. My guess is that he may try a couple of players where the decision is finely balanced, he may be forced into a couple of changes by injury, and he will make liberal use of substitutes to try out his alternative combinations, but basically we will be seeing a settled side.

I am looking forward to seeing what England can do when they have - for once - had the same bunch of players in one place for an extended period and have been able to manage some continuity. The big silver lining of the injury worries that Lancaster's had for the last 4 years is that he has a big enough pool of players that he can pick the ones who are in the best shape and work with them rather than relying on people coming back into form or back from injury. That might mean some good players lose out, but it should also mean that the players that are chosen will have had time to iron out some of the kinks in defence and backline co-ordination that we've seen.

I'll also say it again: I think "world class" is a nonsense term. World class performances come from having a team that works well together and complements each others' strengths. Were Will Greenwood and Mike Catt world class? They each copped a lot of fan and media flak in their playing days (and Catt still gets it today as a coach). But they're the players England have found hardest to replace from the 2003 crop.

Burrell doesn't fill me with confidence on the international stage. 

Yes, he was good last year, but he has been mediocre since. It might sound a little harsh, but I get the impression he is almost out of his depth in an England shirt...? 

He's got neither the pace, nor the power to excel at a particular sort of game, and I just don't think he is that rugby intelligent.

Perhaps I am being a tad harsh, but I would rather see Baritt or 36 in the 12 short before him.

bluestonevedder wrote:Burrell doesn't fill me with confidence on the international stage. 

Yes, he was good last year, but he has been mediocre since. It might sound a little harsh, but I get the impression he is almost out of his depth in an England shirt...? 

He's got neither the pace, nor the power to excel at a particular sort of game, and I just don't think he is that rugby intelligent.

Perhaps I am being a tad harsh, but I would rather see Baritt or 36 in the 12 short before him.

Agree. Here's my list of preferred 12s in order:

Barritt
Slade
36
Eastmond
Burgess
Burrell

spaynter wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Burrell doesn't fill me with confidence on the international stage. 

Yes, he was good last year, but he has been mediocre since. It might sound a little harsh, but I get the impression he is almost out of his depth in an England shirt...? 

He's got neither the pace, nor the power to excel at a particular sort of game, and I just don't think he is that rugby intelligent.

Perhaps I am being a tad harsh, but I would rather see Baritt or 36 in the 12 short before him.

Agree. Here's my list of preferred 12s in order:

Barritt
Slade
36
Eastmond
Burgess
Burrell

Good lord how does he keep creeping on to peoples lists....

What's your problem with him?

His tackling is suspect
His passing is wildly awry at times. Hitting the receivers feet or going way above their head instead of their hands
His decision making is school boyish - how many times does he choose the wrong decision in two on ones....worrying - especially when there are limited chances at international level.

I just feel people are still looking at his "potential" rather than what he is actually producing on the field.

You see I'd agree with each of those on occasion. He's fallen off tackles which he should have made, he's thrown bad passes and some decision making has been awful. But it doesn't happen loads in every game. When Barritt comes back in we will see mistakes from him, hell from everyone. I'd say out of all the challengers for the spot Eastmond has had 2 absolutely awful games where he didn't put a foot right and he doesn't get half the amount of grief!

GeordieFalcon wrote:

spaynter wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Burrell doesn't fill me with confidence on the international stage. 

Yes, he was good last year, but he has been mediocre since. It might sound a little harsh, but I get the impression he is almost out of his depth in an England shirt...? 

He's got neither the pace, nor the power to excel at a particular sort of game, and I just don't think he is that rugby intelligent.

Perhaps I am being a tad harsh, but I would rather see Baritt or 36 in the 12 short before him.

Agree. Here's my list of preferred 12s in order:

Barritt
Slade
36
Eastmond
Burgess
Burrell

Good lord how does he keep creeping on to peoples lists....

Well, IMHO everyone below him makes more errors. Admittedly, 12 isn't a position of strength for England. I'd also put Farrell in the mix just above 36.

bluestonevedder Burrell had a good 6 nations in 2014 as a 13 IMO. Ran excellent support lines and looked dangerous. 3 tries in the tournament too.

I know you are talking about 12 but I think Burrell's international future lies at 13.

As for Slade - what's his best position?

36 is one of those players whose get criticised because he was meant to be a Will Greenwood Mk II - he was meant to be excellent at passing, kicking, playmaking and just generally the perfect solution.

Quite simply he's not lived up to the hype - as Geordiefalcon says - 36 makes a lot of errors.

Not everything he does is bad but his skills have been greatly exaggerated.

Maybe people need to reassess Twelvetrees then and stop holding him to the standards of Greenwood?

36 coming on as a sub has done pretty well, showing a great intensity - it's just getting that 80 minutes out of him

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.

England. Arrogant? Never.

Twelvetrees has all the physical attributes and all the skills - but his decision-making is still dicey. Greenwood's biggest strength was his reading of the game - but that's what comes from being the son of one of rugby's great coaches.

By the way - did anyone else see this:

Telegraph - Ben Foden back in business

Although he's not been named in the 50, Foden's recovery is progressing so well that he could be in contention to play in the warm-up games. It's hinted that he might join the squad for the altitude training next month. That would potentially be a significant boost to England's back three options and give Goode some competition.

Gwlad wrote:

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.

England. Arrogant? Never.

What's arrogant about that post? On current form, according to the world rankings, the last few results between the teams involved and factoring in home advantage, England would be expected to beat Australia and Wales. There's nothing arrogant in saying that. The whole ranking system was developed based on a statistical analysis of thousands of rugby games. It's designed to predict the outcome of future games based on recent performances.

Also, please note the use of the word "if" in my sentence. And the observation that beating Ireland - on current form - is not easy.

Get back under your bridge. Or start posting something worthwhile. Even Grey Ghost managed to do that from time to time.

Ben Foden has an interview in the Telegraph where he says he's on schedule to be fit for training camp and available for the first warm-up if required.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Maybe people need to reassess Twelvetrees then and stop holding him to the standards of Greenwood?

Maybe hold him to the standards of other post greenwood england 12s. Its taken a while but now everyone wants barret back in the team after seein tom dick an harry fail to do any better.
The worst england 12 is always the one with the shirt ( especially when it was erinle)

Gooseberry wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Maybe people need to reassess Twelvetrees then and stop holding him to the standards of Greenwood?

Maybe hold him to the standards of other post greenwood england 12s. Its taken a while but now everyone wants barret back in the team after seein tom dick an harry fail to do any better.
The worst england 12 is always the one with the shirt ( especially when it was erinle)

I want to see Barritt because he has potentially very complementary skills to our incumbent 10 and 13. I don't think he is necessarily better than the alternatives overall. He has also missed a pile of England games so we are making a lot of assumptions based on his reputation

I think we should all try and keep it real, as there is every possibility that we won't get beyond the group stage.

Aus and Wales both have their strenghts and could each take the win.

Our biggest two issues have always been player availability (form & injury) due to the staccato nature of our TOO long season, and the quality of the national coaching. Neither of these have been dealt with to any real satisfactory level, however with the WC being in Sept/Oct it does offer us some isolated time to focus.

The point is I think it is unrealistic to expect success and though you could argue that it will all be on the day, the fact is there will to many 'days' for this team and unfortunately one of those could be at the pool stage.

lostinwales wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Maybe people need to reassess Twelvetrees then and stop holding him to the standards of Greenwood?

Maybe hold him to the standards of other post greenwood england 12s. Its taken a while but now everyone wants barret back in the team after seein tom dick an harry fail to do any better.
The worst england 12 is always the one with the shirt ( especially when it was erinle)

I want to see Barritt because he has potentially very complementary skills to our incumbent 10 and 13. I don't think he is necessarily better than the alternatives overall. He has also missed a pile of England games so we are making a lot of assumptions based on his reputation

Barritt puts pressure on Ford as there will be no kicking option at 12. Twelvetrees has been poor this season for Gloucester. I still hope Slade will play his way into the shirt. He doesn't have much time though.

kingelderfield wrote:I think we should all try and keep it real, as there is every possibility that we won't get beyond the group stage.

Aus and Wales both have their strenghts and could each take the win.

Our biggest two issues have always been player availability (form & injury) due to the staccato nature of our TOO long season, and the quality of the national coaching. Neither of these have been dealt with to any real satisfactory level, however with the WC being in Sept/Oct it does offer us some isolated time to focus.

The point is I think it is unrealistic to expect success and though you could argue that it will all be on the day, the fact is there will to many 'days' for this team and unfortunately one of those could be at the pool stage.

If England reach the WC Final, will you lay off SL?

George Kruis said in a Telegraph interview:

We have got depth and enough depth with experience for the coaches to pick on how they want to play their game, which is a big thing. If you are limited with only a few players, you have to play a certain way. It is awesome that we are in such a good place that England get to choose that. It comes down to how they want to play.

I don't think that's quite right. The coaches don't yet trust enough players that they would be as happy with a Plan B team as a Plan A team. Also, some of the combinations Kruis might have in mind have not had much time together, and Lancaster isn't going into the camp with a blank slate.

DaveM Ford should be able to deal with pressure. If he can't then he should be replaced.

Not sure why there is an obsession with a kicking option at 12.

kingelderfield yes there is a possibility that England won't make beyond the pool stages but England should.

If England don't make it then heads should roll. England have made the quarter finals in every world cup - there should be no excuses for failing at that.

Poorfour is right - England are expected to beat Wales and Australia.

beshocked wrote:Not sure why there is an obsession with a kicking option at 12.

Because if a team only has one kicking option when trying to clear their own lines it makes it so much easier for the opposition. There are a lot more charge downs when the opposition know exactly whom to target. this is one of the reasons we have favoured Youngs and Wiggy at 9 as at least they are not completely useless at kicking from the base of rucks.

Londontiger fair enough but how often did 36 kick anyway?

There's one thing having a kicking option, there's another to use it.

Youngs has indeed improved his kicking but still needs work IMO. Wigglesworth is the best box kicker in England IMO.

Balance is at the heart of it.

If you play a little 10 like Ford, giving him a defensive organiser at 12 like Barritt is very handy indeed. More so than a kicker in my opinion.

If the less creative large 10 like Farrell then obviously a more creative 12 is needed more.

Would be interested in seeing Farrell partnered with Eastmond.

I know you missed the AIs and Farrell was out of form but the time they got to play together was a disaster.

I think this thread and the difference of opinion on players just within the England fans shows perfectly where England are at the minute with quite a number of positions.

I have found myself backing Barritt at 12...ironic as a few years back I found him totally limiting. That also comes after he's been out for so long, so I may be remembering his impact as better than it actually is. Its more down to how I think he'll balance with Ford and Joseph than believing he's the "best actual 12 "

Likewise I was very pro Twelvetrees but have become very negative of him recently.

Lets just hope Lancaster and his team know the score...

no 7 & 1/2 Farrell should have never been in the AIs I have said this many times.

I am not sure it's right to talk about the ability of a potential partnership than Farrell was in such poor form.

Geordiefalcon I think it's a difficult one.

Barritt looks good when you compare his performances to Burrell's at 12 in this year's 6 nations. Also Barritt hasn't let down England too often - he's reliable without setting the world alight. He does what it says on the tin. He's not the complete centre but then no England centre is.

36 is not as bad as made out but he's not an upgrade on Barritt. He's not been helped by his club form.

Don't forget when you partner Farrell with Barritt it looks limited in attack but with Ford and Barritt it might well work -giving Ford someone who can organise the England defence.

Don't forget when you partner Farrell with Barritt it looks limited in attack but with Ford and Barritt it might well work -giving Ford someone who can organise the England defence.

Yes that's what I think...

beshocked wrote:Londontiger fair enough but how often did 36 kick anyway?

There's one thing having a kicking option, there's another to use it.

Youngs has indeed improved his kicking but still needs work IMO. Wigglesworth is the best box kicker in England IMO.

Balance is at the heart of it.

If you play a little 10 like Ford, giving him a defensive organiser at 12 like Barritt is very handy indeed. More so than a kicker in my opinion.

If the less creative large 10 like Farrell then obviously a more creative 12 is needed more.

Would be interested in seeing Farrell partnered with Eastmond.

I think Lancaster sees the important pairing at 9 & 10. It's interesting that he's consistently paired the more creative Ford with Youngs, whereas Farrell played much of his best international rugby with Care playing at 9 with quite a lot of attacking latitude.

The issue with 12 is that England don't currently have an established player in the SH 2nd 5/8ths mould; Twelvetrees should be that but his decision making is iffy. Eastmond has the skills but would give us a very small backline and would further reduce England's (comparatively limited) heavy carrying options. Barritt is the opposite of Eastmond - no carrying or defensive worries, but not as creative in attack and not a kicking option. Slade has it all but is untried at international level. Burgess looks (and I'm surprised to hear myself say this) increasingly like an option at 6 but at best a backup at 12.

All of which is why I will be interested to see if Lancaster tries Ford and Farrell together. He's not had them both fit and in form together, but they played in that formation at U20s, and Farrell has played enough senior club rugby at centre that it's not a huge departure. It's a combination that loses a little defensively compared to Ford-Barritt (but less than most of the other options), perhaps lacks a bit of creativity compared to Ford-Slade (but has much more experience). The biggest concern is the risk to Farrell as a backup 10, either through injury or through inability to adapt to two different roles.

Anyway, that may or may not happen. If it doesn't, or it doesn't work out, then I would probably be happiest to see Barritt there. A second kicking option is useful, but primarily as a Plan B if the opposing forwards are pressuring the flyhalf. Farrell or Slade could be brought on in those situations (much as Catt was in 2003). Ford has the creativity, so having Barritt as the defensive lynchpin and crash ball player works, especially if he can offload to Joseph.

Geordiefalcon you and I are on a similar wavelength when it comes to England selection in my opinion.

Poorfour you say Slade has it all.... I thought that's what people thought about 36....

I would love for Slade to be as you say but I will reserve judgement till I see him play at international level.

Do you honestly want Lancaster to try Ford-Farrell?

I would personally much rather see Ford-Barritt or Ford-Slade as you suggest. Even Farrell-Slade or Farrell-Eastmond.

Slade could fit the Catt role agreed. Just needs an opportunity.

I agree Slade would be a big risk this late in the day - though having come up through the age grades he is more of a known quantity for the coaches than any of the others aside from Ford and Farrell were at the same stage.

I don't know if Ford and Farrell would work, but I would like to see it tried. It has worked at age grade level (which I know is a different beast but it's at least as good a reference point as Saxons), and they are both proven international performers. On paper, it seems worth a shot and no more risky than Slade or Eastmond.

Has Slade ever played 12? I know he's played 10 and 13...

Just curious as HIll seems the nailed on 12 for Exeter...and another prospect post WC.

Likewise hasn't Nowell covered 13 a bit this season for them....

Bloomin Exeter

He played there in the Barbarians game. Never heard of it other than that.

A few thoughts:

12trees may offer a kicking option, but how often does it actually get used? Other than one grubber through for a try and one aimless hoof downfield while ignoring an overlap, I can't remember him being used much in this regard. We kick from 9 at the base of rucks, Ford or Farrell and sometimes Brown from deep defensive positions, but haven't used the 12 as a kicking option for years (hell, a few years ago we often used Cueto...). Inside centre simply is not a position we need a great kicker, so 12trees offers no more than Barritt in this case.

As for 12trees defence, he gets a lot of criticism for shooting out of the line, but that ignores that this is part of the defensive system - the player about 3 out from the ruck (which is often the inside centre, but occasionally a back row forward) has to get up into the opposing line and turn attacks back inwards to our forwards - he's rarely going to be in the ideal position to effect a complete tackle, but often makes a half tackle that slows the opposition attack and makes it easier for the rest of the defence to cover. We can argue whether the tactic is correct, and also whether 12trees carries out this role as well as others might, but some of the criticism of his defensive skills I think is a bit unfair.

The sad thing though with regard to 12trees, is that he, like Nick de Useless for Scotland, was primarily talked up as a good ball handler, but has turned out to have hands like feet. Not only is his passing rather erratic (sometimes good, sometimes makes mine look good,,,), but his ability to take slightly difficult passes is much poorer than you would expect from a top class back.

Interesting thoughts on 36.

Regardless of what happens if he is selected than I hope we see the best of him out there...and he shows the skills and attributes we all hoped he had.

I wont be holding my breath though.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Interesting thoughts on 36.

Regardless of what happens if he is selected than I hope we see the best of him out there...and he shows the skills and attributes we all hoped he had.

I wont be holding my breath though.

I see Twelvetrees and Haskell as having similar attributes and issues. On paper, they both have all the attributes, skills and physical ability to be exceptional in their roles. On the pitch, they frequently seem to be unable to make the most of those talents, usually through making decisions that aren't right for the circumstances. Haskell typically plays best when he is given a very straightforward role, which can work when he's up against a team with a straightforward gameplan and partnered with Wood or Robshaw who are adept at choosing when and where to be to cover the remaining basis (interestingly, I think the same was true of Croft).

It's harder for Twelvetrees because you can't play 12 and not make decisions. Am I misremembering or did his best international game (against Scotland in 2013) come when he was nominally playing 13 outside Barritt? The same was true of Burrell - played well at 13, much less well at 12.

It makes me wonder if the role of inside centre changes significantly between club and international level. At club level, you can be a straightforward crash ball centre if you're a big enough lump with good hands, and you relieve pressure on your fly half by taking the ball into contact. But plenty of big lumps with good hands have looked very ordinary once they step up to international level. I suspect that the decision-making gets much harder, because you have less time, your fly half will be under more pressure and you have to vary your game more.

The two positions mainly under the microscope are 6 and 12 for England, with people quick to bring up Hill, Catt and Greenwood. Maybe we need to remember those guys weren't at their 2002/ 2003 levels straight away and had played at the top for many years - 1995 RWC/ 1997 Lions tour for example. Plus had 6 or 7 others around them with the same experience.

We need to give players a chance - especially at 12. Pick someone and stick with them. For a year at least. Its poor for me we have only ever had one player with over 100 caps, and he retired 12 years ago. Most other countries have 4 or 5 players with over 100 caps.

Haskell does have plenty of caps though, so not sure what his issue is.

Poorfour actually this was the team.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/21274428



Goode,Ashton,Barritt,36,Brown,Farrell,Youngs

I agree though - quite a few similarities between Haskell and 36.

MichaelT wrote:We need to give players a chance - especially at 12. Pick someone and stick with them. For a year at least. Its poor for me we have only ever had one player with over 100 caps, and he retired 12 years ago. Most other countries have 4 or 5 players with over 100 caps..

Most other countries don't have as many options as England - while there are genuinely exceptional 100 cappers like McCaw, BOD and Gregan, there are also a fair number who simply didn't have that much competition. IIRC, Care and Youngs are now England's most capped scrum halves - and if not, they're certainly closing in on Dawson and Bracken who were the previous record holders. Between them each pair has about 100 caps - but competition was strong enough that England could pick on form rather than have to stick with one of them. We would also easily have had another 100 cap player who only retired a year ago - if he hadn't missed 4 years through injury.

50 caps is probably a more relevant metric - and one that has historically been quite a good predictor of RWC performance. When Lancaster came in, one of his stated goals was to develop a squad with a core of 40-50 cap players, despite starting with a clearout of the 2011 old guard. That plan has been scuppered by injury - in particular in the backline; we're edging towards a situation where there's a core of players with 30-40 caps (from memory, Marler, Mako, Corbs, Launchbury, Robshaw, Wood, Brown, Goode and Foden [if fit] are all in that ballpark, with Youngs, Care and Cole around the 50 cap mark). It's quite telling that from 10-14 we don't have that level of experience.

From wiki (usually decent for this sort of thing)

50+ Cole, Haskell, Easter, Care
40-49 B. Youngs, Wilson
30-39 Marler, Lawes, Robshaw, Wood, Ashton, Brown
20-29 T. Youngs, M. Vunipola, Attwood, Launchbury, Parling, Morgan, Wigglesworth, Farrell, Barritt, Twelvetrees
10-19 Webber, Brookes, Corbisiero, B. Vunipola, Dickson, Cipriani, Ford, Burrell, Joseph, May, Strettle, Goode
0-9 Cowan-Dickie, George, Mullen, Kruis, Slater, Burgess, Clark, Itoje, Kvesic, Myler, Slater, Daly, Eastmond, Nowell, Watson, Yarde

A few surprises in there. Barritt only has two more caps than Twelvetrees.