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)

No 7&1/2 wrote:A run of games with the same backline may do wonders.

The fractured backline England have is already part of a team that comfortably dispatched Wales in Cardiff (and an even more fractured team beat them the year before too) and Australia at Twickenham. The players are basically good, but I agree, some continuity would help enormously. Detractors of the 'lack of continuity' argument are conveniently ignoring the fact that continuity has been a huge problem for England and it's been largely unavoidable.

beshocked wrote:well past it conceding 3 tries vs Italy is not very impressive. It's not as if the Italian attack is famed throughout the world of rugby.

Jimpy the wings in general have been poor with Lancaster in charge - this 6 nations was better but May still threw in two defensive mistakes - one vs Wales and the other vs Italy.

Cuthbert leaving Brown clutching at air twice in that 2013 game at Millennium Stadium.

NZ tearing through England last June. Yarde missed numerous tackles that day.

France scoring 3 tries vs England last year in the 6 nations.

Watson's tackling being very poor in the 6 nations this season.

There are plenty of examples.

I want to see wingers scoring tries - of course I do but we are talking about areas England need to improve upon. It's also about getting the best from players.

I have said time and again that I want England to get the best out of their wingers. I think Lancaster has struggled throughout his tenure but this 6 nations was an improvement with Nowell and Watson on the wings.

Did you get tired of typing before getting to Ashton's defensive calamities and outright cowardice on some occasions?

I assume he could not bring himself to mention that in the NZ match Ashton missed 5 from 8, while slating Yarde for missing 2 from 8.

It was still Eastmond that caused those problems for me anyway.

Bambam you are right. Ashton's tackling has not been great.

Londontiger I am pretty sure we've been over this.

Yarde missed two tackles but was at fault for 3 tries.

Manu was partially at fault for the 1st try though Ashton should have perhaps done better.

2nd try - NZ punched through the midfield. Ashton exposed out wide due to his team mates. Again perhaps he should have stopped a man.

3rd try - Yarde misses a tackle.

4th try - Yarde doesn't miss a tackle but gets dummied - allowing the NZ man to score.

5th try - Yarde misses a tackle.

So 2 missed tackles but at fault for 3 tries. You could argue that Ashton had some responsibility for 2 of the NZ tries scored. Yarde was worse.



Both had days to forget in defence.

Its an 80 min game as well, lets not just judge highlights.

beshocked wrote:king carlos Farrell was never in charge of the Saracens defence, it's always been Gustard though perhaps Sanderson can take some credit too.

Saracens attack has improved since Farrell has gone to England.  Only need to look at the increased try count from 2010-11 to 2014/15.

Farrell has done okay but he's not that impressive in my opinion.

Conceding 100 points in the recent 6 nations wasn't good.

Ireland won the 6 nations because of their superior defence.

I hadn't realised that about Farrell at Saracens. Was he a backs coach at the time? Or did he fill a more ambiguous role such as 'skills coach' that Catt currently fills for England?

The defence has been less consistent since we started trying to move to a more aggressive attacking game plan. Which is something you'd expect and personally I wasn't as concerned by our defensive lapses in the France game as I was by our lack of any attacking threat in previous seasons.

As has been said missed tackles rather than poor defensive structure has been more to blame most often.

I'd also still stand by my statement that we have only really seen our defence look extremely poor for a whole game twice during Farrells tenure. In that third test against New Zealand where the players looked shell shocked by what was thrown at them and several back line players struggled. Plus the drubbing by Wales with an out-muscled pack.

'Skills coach' then became 1st team coach - though I don't know what 1st team coach role meant as Mccall was obviously DOR after replacing Brendan Venter.

England scored 7 tries and conceded 5 vs France. I believe that you can become more attacking without giving up too much in defence.

Everyone looked at that game and went wow - England can attack, that's good sure but the defence was not good enough when the necessity in the points difference race was to keep the points conceded down too.

Ireland in their last game vs Scotland scored 4 and conceded 1. Wales scored 8 vs Italy and conceded 2.

The defence in general has been pretty good but it's not been good enough to win the 6 nations.

Oh and of course England's much vaunted attack counted for little vs Ireland.

As for defence - defence is more than just tries conceded. It's points conceded.

France >>> Scotland > Italy.

Was good to watch though!

beshocked wrote:'Skills coach' then became 1st team coach - though I don't know what 1st team coach role meant as Mccall was obviously DOR after replacing Brendan Venter.

England scored 7 tries and conceded 5 vs France. I believe that you can become more attacking without giving up too much in defence.

Everyone looked at that game and went wow - England can attack, that's good sure but the defence was not good enough when the necessity in the points difference race was to keep the points conceded down too.

Ireland in their last game vs Scotland scored 4 and conceded 1. Wales scored 8 vs Italy and conceded 2.

The defence in general has been pretty good but it's not been good enough to win the 6 nations.

Oh and of course England's much vaunted attack counted for little vs Ireland.

As for defence - defence is more than just tries conceded. It's points conceded.

You know what? Sometimes, it's just nice to get out there and have fun, running the ball about. Winning the competition isn't everything, the world didn't stop turning on that day in March. I really didn't mind that England missed out on the last day, because the match against France was fantastic to watch. Look at it, in the cold light of day. What does winning the 6N REALLY mean? Is it nice to have, or is it essential in the development of a team? Those titles (so seemingly precious to some) will come, so don't get too excited or upset that for the last two years, a handful of points has denied England.

Cos you know what, it doesn't really matter. Honestly it doesn't.

Jimpy England haven't won a GS since 2003. That's 12 years. Are England worse than France,Wales,Ireland? No of course not yet it's England with no GS in that time period.

A team with England's depth,resources should be able to do this. I think England's squad is the strongest in the NH and it should be doing better.

I thought Lancaster did well in his first season in charge of England - 2nd was good for then but since then it's been 2nd,2nd,2nd.

I guess you could argue that England have improved but then again they haven't.

It shows great consistency but with Lancaster in charge England have not been able to win a GS. Lancaster has got a better group of players to work with than the likes of Ashton and Johnson had.

To Lancaster's credit he has helped build a much stronger squad than he inherited from Johnson but of course he's had more talent to choose from.

The England vs France game was fantastic to watch but flaws need to be ironed if England want to be the best team in the NH, let alone the world.

I think there were a lot of positives in the 6 nations -

Billy Vunipola was arguably the standout forward of the tournament.

Jonathan Joseph was excellent at 13. Ford had a good 6 nations overall and offers a total different option to Farrell at 10.

An England team missing some players beat a full strength Wales away - that was the best result.

Depth has been strengthened even further.

Nowell looked a lot better this season - he's now shown he can score tries too. Credit where credit's due he's made that 11 shirt his own.

Strength is important and didn't we show that with a 2nd place finish given we were down to reserve locks? No other team would have finished as high if they were down to what 3rd and 5th choice with a 8 covering from the bench?

beshocked wrote:Jimpy England haven't won a GS since 2003. That's 12 years. Are England worse than France,Wales,Ireland? No of course not yet it's England with no GS in that time period.

A team with England's depth,resources should be able to do this. I think England's squad is the strongest in the NH and it should be doing better.

I thought Lancaster did well in his first season in charge of England - 2nd was good for then but since then it's been 2nd,2nd,2nd.

I guess you could argue that England have improved but then again they haven't.

It shows great consistency but with Lancaster in charge England have not been able to win a GS. Lancaster has got a better group of players to work with than the likes of Ashton and Johnson had.

To Lancaster's credit he has helped build a much stronger squad than he inherited from Johnson but of course he's had more talent to choose from.

The England vs France game was fantastic to watch but flaws need to be ironed if England want to be the best team in the NH, let alone the world.

I think there were a lot of positives in the 6 nations -

Billy Vunipola was arguably the standout forward of the tournament.

Jonathan Joseph was excellent at 13. Ford had a good 6 nations overall and offers a total different option to Farrell at 10.

An England team missing some players beat a full strength Wales away - that was the best result.

Depth has been strengthened even further.

Nowell looked a lot better this season - he's now shown he can score tries too. Credit where credit's due he's made that 11 shirt his own.

The only thing England need to be more consistent at is beating the big three SH teams. It doesn't matter a jot who they beat or lose to in the NH, because that won't win them World titles. Out of the NH teams, England have been the best at getting results against the SH teams, regardless of their performances in the 6N.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Strength is important and didn't we show that with a 2nd place finish given we were down to reserve locks? No other team would have finished as high if they were down to what 3rd and 5th choice with a 8 covering from the bench?

I actually think Attwood should start for England, Parling, and Launchbury are too lightweight, and Lawes is a bit 1 dimensional. Plus didn't Wales have their 4th choice lock starting too in Jake Ball who had just a handfull of caps? and didn't Wales finish on joint points with England?

The debate around settled teams is interesting, a settled team has always been a stronger team in most peoples opinions, however with todays technology new comers generally tend to do well initially, so in Englands case I think a few performances with what we would call 'make shift' teams actually improve the chances of winning.

Lets be honest though, when was the last time Wales were quick out of the blocks? Their settled team tends to take 2 games to start performing, have they won a round 1 game this decade except for 2012?

Infact thinking about it, were 2005, 2008 and 2012 Wales only round 1 wins in the last 10 years?

Jimpy I agree that England need to beating the big three SH teams more too. Funnily enough I think England have shown themselves quite competitive under Lancaster vs the big three sides but still no win vs SA.

I feel that two of Lancaster's targets should be a GS and a victory over SA.

If the likes of Ireland and Wales can beat SA why can't we?

England could get to the RWC final and avoid SA and NZ in the process - by topping Pool A. I would expect most of the opponents would be 6 nations ones.

Wales got to a wc semi in 2011 without beating a top 3 side. France got to the final without beating a top 3 side too.

Good for you, but Attwood wouldn't be many, if anyones, starting lock. lawes and Launchbury are and they're up there with the best. As I said no other side would have finished 2nd given 1st, 2nd and probably 4th locks missing. Not too bothered about Wales record on an England topic though.

Fanster Attwood hasn't brought the power that England expected him to bring.

I think the longer Launchbury is injured, the more his legend grows. He's good though.

Form can come and go. Will be interesting to see if Launchbury can rediscover previous good form.

no 7 & 1/2 perhaps no other team could do it but England have 12 teams in the AP - we should have some strength in depth! Kruis and Attwood play for two of the best teams in the AP.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Good for you, but Attwood wouldn't be many, if anyones, starting lock. lawes and Launchbury are and they're up there with the best. As I said no other side would have finished 2nd given 1st, 2nd and probably 4th locks missing. Not too bothered about Wales record on an England topic though.

Lawes and Launchbury as a pairing is just lacking too much, theres no grunt. I'd say Launchbury showed a huge amount of potential a fe easons ago, but is yet to realise that fully, to rate him up there with the best isn't realistic, AWJ, POC, Whitelock, Retallick are what England needs, an old head and a forward to lead, Lawes is far down the pecking order in world locks, he is an immense athlete but not a particularly effective lock.

I'd start with Attwood and Launchbury, then use Lawes off the bench depending on the situation when required.

Fanster wrote:... and Lawes is a bit 1 dimensional...

I wouldn't mind seeing that comment expanded on

Guess my point is that you need a touch of luck sometimes to win a grand slam, including injuries.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Good for you, but Attwood wouldn't be many, if anyones, starting lock. lawes and Launchbury are and they're up there with the best. As I said no other side would have finished 2nd given 1st, 2nd and probably 4th locks missing. Not too bothered about Wales record on an England topic though.

Lawes and Launchbury as a pairing is just lacking too much, theres no grunt. I'd say Launchbury showed a huge amount of potential a fe easons ago, but is yet to realise that fully, to rate him up there with the best isn't realistic, AWJ, POC, Whitelock, Retallick are what England needs, an old head and a forward to lead, Lawes is far down the pecking order in world locks, he is an immense athlete but not a particularly effective lock.

I'd start with Attwood and Launchbury, then use Lawes off the bench depending on the situation when required.

I'm glad you're not the head coach of England then.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Good for you, but Attwood wouldn't be many, if anyones, starting lock. lawes and Launchbury are and they're up there with the best. As I said no other side would have finished 2nd given 1st, 2nd and probably 4th locks missing. Not too bothered about Wales record on an England topic though.

Lawes and Launchbury as a pairing is just lacking too much, theres no grunt. I'd say Launchbury showed a huge amount of potential a fe easons ago, but is yet to realise that fully, to rate him up there with the best isn't realistic, AWJ, POC, Whitelock, Retallick are what England needs, an old head and a forward to lead, Lawes is far down the pecking order in world locks, he is an immense athlete but not a particularly effective lock.

I'd start with Attwood and Launchbury, then use Lawes off the bench depending on the situation when required.

Riiiiiiight

It's very frustrating that England haven't been able to win a GS since Lancaster took over, but it's not the end of the world. Two of those losses were unusual circumstances: the Walsh-assisted defeat in Cardiff and a two point loss in Paris with an untried backline that had been pulled out of shape by substitutions.

The one that worries me is the loss to Ireland this year. Ireland - who are potential RWC SF opponents - matched England's game plan and kept them contained until the last 10 minutes or so.

England could actually have won the game, despite it all. They crossed the line twice, to have one try disallowed for an accidental offside that didn't materially impede Ireland's defence and the other for a narrowly forward pass. The point being not that the ref's decisions were wrong (they were both very sound technical decisions) but that only minor technical infringements stood between England and victory.

But what's worrying is that that should have been necessary. England were unable to impose their gameplan or make forward progress, even with the backline that tore France to pieces.

lostinwales wrote:

Fanster wrote:... and Lawes is a bit 1 dimensional...

I wouldn't mind seeing that comment expanded on

Without going into it in too much depth and taking away from the original discussion...

His tendancy to end up at C, regardless of his starting position annoys me, we get it you want to be a flanker, but the fact you have 5/6 seconds to find C menas your pack has struggled at the breakdown to secure quick ball, maybe lend a hand once in a while.

He's a risk tackler, it's very Island esque, sometimes you need to read a situation and smother the attack, instead of flying out to be exploited, the amount of tackles I see him make where he was never going to reach the ball, and just hit a man is stupid, he gets penalised regularly and tht style of play will always attract the refs attention!

beshocked wrote:Jimpy I agree that England need to beating the big three SH teams more too. Funnily enough I think England have shown themselves quite competitive under Lancaster vs the big three sides but still no win vs SA.

I feel that two of Lancaster's targets should be a GS and a victory over SA.

If the likes of Ireland and Wales can beat SA why can't we?

England could get to the RWC final and avoid SA and NZ in the process - by topping Pool A. I would expect most of the opponents would be 6 nations ones.

Wales got to a wc semi in 2011 without beating a top 3 side. France got to the final without beating a top 3 side too.

Can the likes of Ireland and Wales beat Australia or NZ - and if at all, with anything like the record England have against them?

A win over SA would be good, and so would a GS, but forcing the issue could actually be counter-productive. As others have pointed out, winning isn't everything, its making sure England don't go off the boil like they did against Ireland that should be dealt with.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Guess my point is that you need a touch of luck sometimes to win a grand slam, including injuries.

I think thats been a big issue for England for a fair few seasons, so much player turnover has probably cost 2/3 championships, a bit of bad luck another 1/2.

Lancaster has one well to get England to where they are, they are competitive on the final day of the 6N regularly, unlike mid - late 2000's when they would struggle.

England are my very close 2nd favourites for the RWC, with SA's lock and pack issues, Australia or Wales having to go out at the group stage, and Irelands route, England may well take the prize.

Fanster Attwood hasn't added grunt though - that's the issue.

no 7 & 1/2 can't rely on luck though. That's the problem. You could argue that England have been unlucky on some occasions but it's not something you can control.

To be fair to Fanster I am not sure a pack of

1.Marler
2.Youngs
3.Cole
4.Launchbury
5.Lawes
6.Wood
7.Robshaw
8.Vunipola/Morgan

has enough power/grunt though we'll see in the matches.

Slater,Burgess and Itoje - three options that have been talked about potentially adding some more physicality.

Haskell was meant to add some power at 6 but only managed to do so in one game.

lostinwales wrote:

Fanster wrote:... and Lawes is a bit 1 dimensional...

I wouldn't mind seeing that comment expanded on

I think what fenster means is that bar being a lineout king, he doesn't offer a huge amount else...with the exception of hitting half backs hard.

Ie
He's not a great carrier
He's not a huge rucker
He's not monster in mauls etc

Whilst I agree to a degree...I also disagree to a degree about his ability.

I wish Launchbury was better in the lineout as well.

Relying on luck or not, you generally need a touch of it.

beshocked wrote:Fanster Attwood hasn't added grunt though - that's the issue.

no 7 & 1/2 can't rely on luck though. That's the problem. You could argue that England have been unlucky on some occasions but it's not something you can control.

To be fair to Fanster I am not sure a pack of

1.Marler
2.Youngs
3.Cole
4.Launchbury
5.Lawes
6.Wood
7.Robshaw
8.Vunipola/Morgan

has enough power/grunt though we'll see in the matches.

Slater,Burgess and Itoje - three options that have been talked about potentially adding some more physicality.

Haskell was meant to add some power at 6 but only managed to do so in one game.

But I think thats because he hasn't been allowed to settle in a run of games, we know it's there! The same happened to Marler, he was a huge flop when he tried to convert his style to international rugby, a bit of perceverance and Attwood has what England need I think...

That pack above is severely lacking in a lot of things, I would definately drop Lawes to the bench for Attwood, Vunipola in for Marler, and Burgess or Haskell for Wood (It doesn't matter which they both bring the same).

Then even with my changes I would worry about the breakdown, with Cole and Robshaw the only real players with any effective history there.

I was shouting for Attwood to be starting...but sadly he simply hasn't brought that power we wanted to this level.

He might find himself drifting totally out of the squad post WC, as Kruis, Slater, Itoje, Barrow etc progress....

GeordieFalcon wrote:I was shouting for Attwood to be starting...but sadly he simply hasn't brought that power we wanted to this level.

He might find himself drifting totally out of the squad post WC, as Kruis, Slater, Itoje, Barrow etc progress....

Or 4/5 RWC games under his belt he could be the first name on the team sheet?

Fanster wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Fanster wrote:... and Lawes is a bit 1 dimensional...

I wouldn't mind seeing that comment expanded on

Without going into it in too much depth and taking away from the original discussion...

His tendancy to end up at C, regardless of his starting position annoys me, we get it you want to be a flanker, but the fact you have 5/6 seconds to find C menas your pack has struggled at the breakdown to secure quick ball, maybe lend a hand once in a while.

He's a risk tackler, it's very Island esque, sometimes you need to read a situation and smother the attack, instead of flying out to be exploited, the amount of tackles I see him make where he was never going to reach the ball, and just hit a man is stupid, he gets penalised regularly and tht style of play will always attract the refs attention!

Interesting. Lawes tackling (the high speed 18 stone body horizontal just as the ball leaves the hands type tackles) can be very borderline, but to be honest he doesn't often get pinged for them which shows a fine appreciation of timing and must be quite intimidating for opposing half backs. He isn't picked for his tackling though. He's a more than useful lineout presence and another real grafter.

I think he tends to pick his moments for those tackles a bit more carefully these days. When he was picked at 6 for a match a couple of years back he spent all game trying to make those hits, mostly missing and ending up looking like an idiot.

Fanster wrote:

beshocked wrote:Fanster Attwood hasn't added grunt though - that's the issue.

no 7 & 1/2 can't rely on luck though. That's the problem. You could argue that England have been unlucky on some occasions but it's not something you can control.

To be fair to Fanster I am not sure a pack of

1.Marler
2.Youngs
3.Cole
4.Launchbury
5.Lawes
6.Wood
7.Robshaw
8.Vunipola/Morgan

has enough power/grunt though we'll see in the matches.

Slater,Burgess and Itoje - three options that have been talked about potentially adding some more physicality.

Haskell was meant to add some power at 6 but only managed to do so in one game.

But I think thats because he hasn't been allowed to settle in a run of games, we know it's there! The same happened to Marler, he was a huge flop when he tried to convert his style to international rugby, a bit of perceverance and Attwood has what England need I think...

That pack above is severely lacking in a lot of things, I would definately drop Lawes to the bench for Attwood, Vunipola in for Marler, and Burgess or Haskell for Wood (It doesn't matter which they both bring the same).

Then even with my changes I would worry about the breakdown, with Cole and Robshaw the only real players with any effective history there.

Marler has gone from average to very good, with the new scrum laws especially seeming to suit him. He is no.1 on merit but its nice to have Mako as an alternative.

Youngs is known as a rucking monster, and Launchbury has a good reputation for his breakdown work also. England looked very good with the Lawes/Launchbury combo.

Poorfour I agree. The Ireland gameplan was so predictable that every man and their dog knew that Ireland would do but England had no answer. Perhaps the return of players will make a difference but remember the side that went up against Ireland was good enough to beat Wales away, I thought that England side should have been good enough to at least put up more of a fight if not win. Kruis and Attwood aren't as highly rated as Lawes and Launchbury but they are not bad players.

Jimpy I think Ireland beat Australia didn't they? Also they almost beat NZ but lost in the last play on one occasion.

Fanster Attwood has had enough of a run. Also you mention Marler - Marler hasn't shown his carrying abilities at international level (actually a lot of England players haven't utilised their club skills at international level).

Will be really interesting to see who gets cut when it goes down to 45 players.

Lancaster has plenty of favourites in the lock/backrow battle like Clark,Itoje,Burgess and Slater but surely not all 4 will make that 45.

Perhaps Parling will get the nod in the 2nd row if Youngs starts at hooker.

Fanster wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I was shouting for Attwood to be starting...but sadly he simply hasn't brought that power we wanted to this level.

He might find himself drifting totally out of the squad post WC, as Kruis, Slater, Itoje, Barrow etc progress....

Or 4/5 RWC games under his belt he could be the first name on the team sheet?

I don't think so. I think he's missed his chance and will be overtaken.

beshocked wrote:Poorfour I agree. The Ireland gameplan was so predictable that every man and their dog knew that Ireland would do but England had no answer. Perhaps the return of players will make a difference but remember the side that went up against Ireland was good enough to beat Wales away, I thought that England side should have been good enough to at least put up more of a fight if not win. Kruis and Attwood aren't as highly rated as Lawes and Launchbury but they are not bad players.

Jimpy I think Ireland beat Australia didn't they? Also they almost beat NZ but lost in the last play on one occasion.

Fanster Attwood has had enough of a run. Also you mention Marler - Marler hasn't shown his carrying abilities at international level (actually a lot of England players haven't utilised their club skills at international level).

Will be really interesting to see who gets cut when it goes down to 45 players.

Lancaster has plenty of favourites in the lock/backrow battle like Clark,Itoje,Burgess and Slater but surely not all 4 will make that 45.

Perhaps Parling will get the nod in the 2nd row if Youngs starts at hooker.

They did beat Australia, they also won a GS - their first in what I think was 67 years... puts England's 12 year gap more into perspective.....don't it.

The point is, winning isn't everything - IF you've got a plan. I think Lancaster has the means at his disposal, and I'm sure they have a plan. I know you're hopping up and down because the team hasn't been able to improve past a certain point, but you have to be pragmatic and realise that it will happen - many scoff at the suggestion that England have lacked continuity, but it is true and it has been a decisive factor in recent tournament results.

Don't forget Lawes made some Croft like cover tackles in the 6n showing real athleticisim.

Lawes is quality in certain areas of the game. Launchbury is also...are the correct combo. Hopefully yes.

I would like to see Lawes put a few of those missile tackles on a few of the opposition forwards now and again aswell.

Many are saying we need some monstrous bulk in there...I am a big fan of that aswell...but I guess the argument is that neither Whitlock nor Retalick are raging giants...yet everyone agrees how good they are.

I do wonder if amongst Lawes' many tattoos there is somewhere a line of 9's and 10's with crosses through them

Jimpy Ireland have just 4 pro teams. We should be better than Ireland. We've got far more advantages.

Winning isn't everything but it's important and shouldn't be irrelevant.

If Lancaster does indeed win a GS with this England side then I will give credit where credit's due but till then......

Lack of continuity can also work in a team's favour as it adds an unknown quantity and unpredictable factor which is hard for an opposition team to counter.

E.g. Ford is a completely different 10 to Farrell so gives opposition different questions to answer. Joseph was a completely different 13 to Burrell or Manu.

It's often that we have seen player X have a storming season when they've been an unknown quantity. Opposition sometimes need time to adapt to a certain player.

A halfback combo of Youngs-Ford was very different to that of Care-Farrell.

Compare this to a team like Wales whose familiarity makes them predictable and easier to counter. The full Welsh team is a known quantity. An ever changing England side is not.

England can transform into a remarkably different team with different line ups. The large player base allows England more variety.

I would say it's England's advantage that they have the potential to adapt their game than a team like Ireland and Wales.

Like Wales I would say Ireland are a predictable team, tough to break down and beat but still predictable.

beshocked wrote:Jimpy Ireland have just 4 pro teams. We should be better than Ireland. We've got far more advantages.

Winning isn't everything but it's important and shouldn't be irrelevant.

If Lancaster does indeed win a GS with this England side then I will give credit where credit's due but till then......

Lack of continuity can also work in a team's favour as it adds an unknown quantity and unpredictable factor which is hard for an opposition team to counter.

E.g. Ford is a completely different 10 to Farrell so gives opposition different questions to answer. Joseph was a completely different 13 to Burrell or Manu.

It's often that we have seen player X have a storming season when they've been an unknown quantity. Opposition sometimes need time to adapt to a certain player.

A halfback combo of Youngs-Ford was very different to that of Care-Farrell.

Compare this to a team like Wales whose familiarity makes them predictable and easier to counter. The full Welsh team is a known quantity. An ever changing England side is not.

England can transform into a remarkably different team with different line ups. The large player base allows England more variety.

I would say it's England's advantage that they have the potential to adapt their game than a team like Ireland and Wales.

Like Wales I would say Ireland are a predictable team, tough to break down and beat but still predictable.

Exactly why Manu should not automatically get back into the squad next year. And constantly changing players doesn't alter the fact that the net result is negative.

To be fair Manu quite often manages to have storming seasons even though he is a known quantity. But it is absolutely correct that he should have to force his way in rather than come back into the squad automatically.

Manu might find himself a bench option if someone like Sam Hill can get himself in next season.

10 Ford
12 - A powerhouse carrier / tackler
13 Joseph

Is an interesting mix...

Shame Manu is a 13 not a 12.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Manu might find himself a bench option if someone like Sam Hill can get himself in next season.

10 Ford
12 - A powerhouse carrier / tackler
13 Joseph

Is an interesting mix...

Shame Manu is a 13 not a 12.

Possibly with Tigers new signings and Tait doing so well there at the end of last season, Manu might find himself at 12 next.

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:'Skills coach' then became 1st team coach - though I don't know what 1st team coach role meant as Mccall was obviously DOR after replacing Brendan Venter.

England scored 7 tries and conceded 5 vs France. I believe that you can become more attacking without giving up too much in defence.

Everyone looked at that game and went wow - England can attack, that's good sure but the defence was not good enough when the necessity in the points difference race was to keep the points conceded down too.

Ireland in their last game vs Scotland scored 4 and conceded 1. Wales scored 8 vs Italy and conceded 2.

The defence in general has been pretty good but it's not been good enough to win the 6 nations.

Oh and of course England's much vaunted attack counted for little vs Ireland.

As for defence - defence is more than just tries conceded. It's points conceded.

You know what? Sometimes, it's just nice to get out there and have fun, running the ball about. Winning the competition isn't everything, the world didn't stop turning on that day in March. I really didn't mind that England missed out on the last day, because the match against France was fantastic to watch. Look at it, in the cold light of day. What does winning the 6N REALLY mean? Is it nice to have, or is it essential in the development of a team? Those titles (so seemingly precious to some) will come, so don't get too excited or upset that for the last two years, a handful of points has denied England.

Cos you know what, it doesn't really matter. Honestly it doesn't.

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


At the the end of the day sport is there for our entertainment, it's there for people like us to want to watch and to enjoy watching.

And you know what? I can hand on heart say I enjoyed watching that game a million times more then kickfest, 9-6 low scoring Top14 Final style rugby.

That game entertained me right to the bitter the end. And the fact that we kept conceding, and having to score more just made it more exciting.

Thank you Jimpy for that post

Slater, Itoje, Daly, Myler and Easter (sort of) to be dropped from the squad

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11730314/Rugby-World-Cup-2015-Stuart-Lancaster-to-axe-five-from-England-squad.html

Lawes and Launchbury compliment eachother, that's why they work so well.

Lawes is an excellent line out technician, but is also a complete disruptor. He puts the big hits in and causes disarray amongst the opposition. He's steadily improving in his maul defence too.

Conversely, Launchbury does more of the unseen work. As well as being athletic and fit, he's a menace at the breakdown and solid defensively.

Attwood had his chance to put a marker down and didn't do enough. I don't know why giving him 4 or 5 world cup games would make any difference Fanster? As far as Lawes and Launchbury not being world class locks, I think that's a bit far from the truth.

I'm also not sure England need an AWJ! I don't even think he's the best lock in Wales.

BamBam wrote:Slater, Itoje, Daly, Myler and Easter (sort of) to be dropped from the squad

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11730314/Rugby-World-Cup-2015-Stuart-Lancaster-to-axe-five-from-England-squad.html

Real shame if true. I guess it shows who Lancaster's biggest favourites are - Sam Burgess and Calum Clark.

Must be reasons for dropping Itoje. Personally I think he's getting dropped simply because of his lack of experience which I think is the wrong move but I could be wrong.

I guess England's lost will be Saracens gain though.

If this is true then the lock options have effectively been picked now. Kind of disappointing to see Attwood still there. Seems like a safe/uninspiring selection.

I feel that England are making error by dropping Itoje and Daly in particular.

beshocked wrote:

BamBam wrote:Slater, Itoje, Daly, Myler and Easter (sort of) to be dropped from the squad

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11730314/Rugby-World-Cup-2015-Stuart-Lancaster-to-axe-five-from-England-squad.html

Real shame if true. I guess it shows who Lancaster's biggest favourites are - Sam Burgess and Calum Clark.

Must be reasons for dropping Itoje. Personally I think he's getting dropped simply because of his lack of experience which I think is the wrong move but I could be wrong.

I guess England's lost will be Saracens gain though.

If this is true then the lock options have effectively been picked now. Kind of disappointing to see Attwood still there. Seems like a safe/uninspiring selection.

I feel that England are making error by dropping Itoje and Daly in particular.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here beshocked. I would have loved to see Daly especially lineup in a RWC game.

Injury really ruined this year for Slater. If he had had a full season I think we would see him there rather than Attwood.