England's RWC Preparations

First topic message reminder :

Original thread about to explode

https://www.606v2.com/t59064-englands-50-man-training-squad-for-rwc

Not a fan beshocked. Well think there are a lot of better 8s about inc. in England as in Morgan. Rowntree always talks him up and his big carries, I've never really see him carry ala Dillaglio, Vermeulen, Read, Faletau, Corry etc.

GeordieFalcon wrote:...his low sense of gravity....

I think you mean "low centre" but it tickles me greatly to think of someone with a low sense of gravity. Apologies for picking that up, rather than making a useful contribution to the thread, GF.

fa0019 wrote:I never said Robshaw is bad. Think he's one of the best players in rugby at the moment but think he's more a 6. He would be I reckon in nearly all sides in the world as a starter... but not at 7.
Probably one of the most obvious things in rugby at the moment concerning the number of turnovers and profiles of big poachers such as Pocock, Brussow, Burger, Bissie etc. Didn't think it was controversial.

We have done this to death a few times. There is a lot of coverage of poachers and its usually very positive, because on the right day they have a very visible impact on the game. But there are often downsides. I think someone here pointed out that for all of the many turnovers that Armitage made in a recent high profile game he also gave away a stack of penalties, something Robshaw doesn't do. The other thing that is a big deal is that if the attacking team is astute enough at protecting the ball and either getting numbers in or moving the ball quickly they can largely nullify a good poacher. When that happens often you are left with a guy whose primary function is nullified and who cannot offer much in the tight, effectively leaving your pack short handed.

Its a difficult balance and does depend very much on the actual players you have available, but you can play very well without an out and out poacher against a team with one

I just presumed you were a bit of a wum that's all and they're normally Welsh on the English boards.

Makes a change having a Scottish wum involved, welcome

Surely Haskell was meant to bring the dumb strength and muscle you were craving Geordie?

Certainly seemed to do it vs Wales. Unfortunately against France and Ireland Haskell was dumb but didn't bring the strength or muscle too.

Also Attwood too was meant to bring the brute force but he didn't deliver that.

Beshocked,
Haskell and Attwood are EXACTLY what I was talking about. Haskell delivered v Wales but didn't bring that power game to the rest of the tournament.

Attwood just hasn't brought it at all...and he's one I was hoping he would.

That's the type of players im talking about. A consistent Haskell (or that type) at 6 and a powerful lock would really bring some balance to this pack - in my humble opinion of course.

But then I understand the lineout implications etc

Rugby Fan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:...his low sense of gravity....

I think you mean "low centre" but it tickles me greatly to think of someone with a low sense of gravity. Apologies for picking that up, rather than making a useful contribution to the thread, GF.

how did I manage that....yes low centre

fa0019 wrote:...he makes moral decisions on Armitage, Tuilagi, Hartley, all non rugby reasons...

Hartley's non-selection was entirely a rugby reason. He's not available for the first World Cup game (or any of the warm-up matches). If Hartley was one of the three squad hookers, the other two would do duty against Fiji. However, if one of them - say Youngs - took a light knock beforehand, he'd have to be dumped from the squad completely to bring in a fourth hooker. That's not acceptable.

If one of our three hookers does need to be replaced during the tournament, and Hartley isn't given the call, then it would be fair to say he's in the dog house.

Seems like Tuilagi would not have been fit for the tournament anyway.

I think Hartleys England career is over now.

This summer though the only thing I've read about England has been Lancaster making morale decisions on Armitage, then Tuilagi, then Hartley. Its mind blowing

England don't select players not in England. Armitage for that reason is out...not a moral issue.
Hartley is rugby / ban related as explained above by rugbyfan
Manu is the only one you could say is moral and not a decision I would have made. However in all honesty its irrelevant anyway as he is still not fit and would probably not have been available this WC anyway.

As to fans settling for 2nd best. I am a regular on here and certainly don't settle for 2nd place. I think Lancaster has done the majority of things right in his tenure...but there are a few things im not happy about.
But that has also been down to player availability (injuries and suspensions) etc which often Lancaster hasn't had a lot of luck with...so I have to be understanding and realistic as well....

Fa0019 Billy Vunipola had a very good 6 nations and made the most metres and carries vs Ireland.

Not sure how you can say he's not a good carrier.

This is analysis of the France game.

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/england-countries/six-nations-player-analysis-billy-vunipola-england-44095

Billy is a more complete player than in the past.

Billy is a top class 8, whos alround game is hugely underrated by most out there.

And he is class at getting the offloads away. Something people miss a lot aswell...

But Ben Morgan is class aswell.

Who do you start.
Billy start, then bring Morgan for his running when the opposition gets tired?

I'd love to us try:

6. Vuinipola
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

None of our 6's inspire me with much confidence tbh. Issues we'd have is work rate and line out options....

I think Billy has really overtaken Morgan in the last year as the no.1 choice. It still worries me that our backrow bench option is going to be a no.8. I know that technically Lawes could move to 6 but personally I would have Haskell as the bench backrow to offer a bit more flexibility.

Billy gives you a good work rate. But not for 80 mins like Wood would at 6.

Also yes Launchbury would have to go for another lineout lock. And Robshaw would need to be used more.

Can we not just get Derren Brown or what ever he's called to get into Haskell's head and make him play at maximum velocity on a consistent basis. Then there would be no issues.

Bathman_in_London wrote:I think Billy has really overtaken Morgan in the last year as the no.1 choice. It still worries me that our backrow bench option is going to be a no.8. I know that technically Lawes could move to 6 but personally I would have Haskell as the bench backrow to offer a bit more flexibility.

I think Billy has a better alround game. His carrying is explosive, his offloads excellent, but his tackling and ruckwork are really getting there aswell.

Ben is a more flashy, strike runner and when its on...its brilliant to watch...but his alround game is not as good.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:I think Billy has really overtaken Morgan in the last year as the no.1 choice. It still worries me that our backrow bench option is going to be a no.8. I know that technically Lawes could move to 6 but personally I would have Haskell as the bench backrow to offer a bit more flexibility.

I think Billy has a better alround game. His carrying is explosive, his offloads excellent, but his tackling and ruckwork are really getting there aswell.

Ben is a more flashy, strike runner and when its on...its brilliant to watch...but his alround game is not as good.

Agree entirely. That article quoted above somewhere said Billy made 21 tackles against France in that 6N match. It also did a lot to highlight both his all round contribution and his intelligence in ball distribution and knowing when to get involved.

Ben at his best had been improving his work rate and hes a smart player with great hands, but what he is best at is those explosive little runs that make something out of nothing. Now that Billy is an 80 minute player its a tough choice if Ben is back to full fitness.

Where has the idea that Launchbury isn't good in the lineout come from?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Where has the idea that Launchbury isn't good in the lineout come from?

I suppose I have kind of assumed that, because he's very limitedly used in that capacity. Its usually Lawes and Wood.
Your right though...I guess it doesn't mean hes not good at it.

LIW

I think its best to manage them properly and use them in the right games.
In more tight contests maybe use Billy to start, in open games like maybe Fiji, give Billy a rest and give Ben a good run out. We don't want to overwork either of them...they're both valuable.

Well who's the 2nd most used in the lineout as Wood was quoted as the 3rd most. I have no idea the context of the quote in timing as it was made recently by an England coach but I'd assume that meant that Lawes and Launchbury took the most? Genuine question as I don't know. Watching the games he's struck me as a good option and I haven't noticed the team going around others to avoid throwing to him.

Maybe your right. Ill have a look.

In the meantime, I see Mr Baxter is backing his young champ for the 12 spot...

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/33720136

That's going to be a nightmare GF we've had that many choices of lock and 6 recently. But thanks!

Completely agree Slade over Burgess.

Not finding a huge amount about his lineout stats. Just from last years 6n...that England target players on all round play...

The backroom staff collate every little detail – tackles, passes, rucks hit, lineout takes, etc – and then reveal how many "contributions" each player makes to the game. In 2014 6n Launchbury's total in Paris was a remarkable 103

Interesting he also shows leadership and attitude - after Frances first try.

The ball sailed over his head, the unsighted debutant Jack Nowell knocked on and, within seconds, France had their first try, scored by Yoann Huget.

"Jack actually turned to me and said: 'That was my fault,'" reveals Launchbury, wincing at the memory. "I said to him: 'Of course it's not. It's your first cap. Get your head down and get on with it.'"

Damn. Beshocked was right.

ha ha yeah that's what I thought

Can Ben Morgan last the 80 though? Also what happens if Robshaw is injured early in a game?

I am not a big fan of Haskell but he can cover 6,7 and 8.

To be honest I think Slade would be a better bench option than Farrell - he of course can cover 10,12 and 13 whilst I wouldn't want Farrell coming on for an injured centre.

I believe some players are starters or shouldn't be in the 23 at all - I would put the likes of Billy/Morgan,Farrell,Barritt,Twelvetrees,Burrell,Goode into that category. I know Goode wouldn't start unless Brown was injured but he was not a good replacement against France.

England need to have optimum flexibility in the 23 if there are injuries.

I'd actually agree with a lot of FA's comments, although I rate Billy higher, I see why others don't see the same because of his raw and erratic nature of play!

His work rate is very good, but he doesn't look as polished or classy as Falatau, luckily it's a game of effectiveness and not classiness.

With regards to Robshaw, I've constantly thought he was a 6 and 1/2, he is a superb player who just doesn't fullfil the 7 role, and FA is spot on I see a lot of teams playing poachers at this RWC.

Australia will go with Pocock and Hooper,

Wales with Tipuric and Warburton,

SA even fielded the older Louw and Burger at 8.

Each of these teams also have another top class poacher in their packs.

England are going to be outguned there if they go with Cole and Robshaw to a lesser extent! Meaning more player to secure, and less turnovers.

Hopefully

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Fa, why are you so concerned with English rugby issues? Where exactly are you from?

Standard Sgt Pooly response to anyone he perceives to be a non English fan

Just checked the 2015 6N results and England conceded more turnovers than their opponents vs France Wales and ofc Ireland

Fanster wrote:I'd actually agree with a lot of FA's comments, although I rate Billy higher, I see why others don't see the same because of his raw and erratic nature of play!

His work rate is very good, but he doesn't look as polished or classy as Falatau, luckily it's a game of effectiveness and not classiness.

With regards to Robshaw, I've constantly thought he was a 6 and 1/2, he is a superb player who just doesn't fullfil the 7 role, and FA is spot on I see a lot of teams playing poachers at this RWC.

Australia will go with Pocock and Hooper,

Wales with Tipuric and Warburton,

SA even fielded the older Louw and Burger at 8.

Each of these teams also have another top class poacher in their packs.

England are going to be outguned there if they go with Cole and Robshaw to a lesser extent! Meaning more player to secure, and less turnovers.

Hopefully

England's coaches expect turnover contributions from throughout the side.

DaveM wrote:

Fanster wrote:I'd actually agree with a lot of FA's comments, although I rate Billy higher, I see why others don't see the same because of his raw and erratic nature of play!

His work rate is very good, but he doesn't look as polished or classy as Falatau, luckily it's a game of effectiveness and not classiness.

With regards to Robshaw, I've constantly thought he was a 6 and 1/2, he is a superb player who just doesn't fullfil the 7 role, and FA is spot on I see a lot of teams playing poachers at this RWC.

Australia will go with Pocock and Hooper,

Wales with Tipuric and Warburton,

SA even fielded the older Louw and Burger at 8.

Each of these teams also have another top class poacher in their packs.

England are going to be outguned there if they go with Cole and Robshaw to a lesser extent! Meaning more player to secure, and less turnovers.

Hopefully

England's coaches expect turnover contributions from throughout the side.

Of course everyone expects turnover contributions, through numerous formats, however having 2 poachers on the park is going to have it's positives, and if both Wales and Australia do so, England are going to have to counter that somehow.

If Wales and Australia do this for what would be the relatively first time against England (except for Wales 2013) can England have an answer? Do they have the breakdown personell to slow enough ball in Cole who seems to be the only standout over the ball in the England set up.

Fanster we have answered this a few times. And I'll try again. There are positives to playing poachers and negatives, and playing 2 poachers may leave a team outgunned in general muscle and in the tight.

A lot will depend on the ref and the control that England has over the ball, but its a way to play the game not the way.

lostinwales wrote:Fanster we have answered this a few times. And I'll try again. There are positives to playing poachers and negatives, and playing 2 poachers may leave a team outgunned in general muscle and in the tight.

A lot will depend on the ref and the control that England has over the ball, but its a way to play the game not the way.

Nobody says it's the way, however based on the RC it's a very possible trend to win the breakdown, and well Wales are equipped to do exactly the same thing, England aren't.

I'm sure Lancaster is paying more attention through threat analysis' etc

My point is not to criticise England, it's merely to highlight that as good a player Robshaw is, I think England are still missing something in the back row, and you have to consider that winning the RWCwill be a huge test of 20+ players, the question has to be asked about what is England weakest unit.

12 and right wing are Englands biggest challenges for me in starting spots. Hooker for bench. Not fearing the breakdown of Aus or Wales. Ireland will be the bigger challenge.

No 7&1/2 wrote:12 and right wing are Englands biggest challenges for me in starting spots. Hooker for bench. Not fearing the breakdown of Aus or Wales. Ireland will be the bigger challenge.

Firstly, if you get that far Ireland may well be a big challenge.

Secondly, Lancaster certainly recognises the challenge at the breakdown by not allowing Burgess to become a weakness there! Wales and Aus aren't going to be the same teams as previous, especially after both losing to England last time out, they will take slightly greater risks in certain areas to beat the English.

The breakdown in recent games have been pretty even, there has been some good and bad luck on all fronts, but lets be honest, if England crash out of the group stage losing to both Australia and Wales then not to many people outside England will be too shocked, similarly if they make the RWC final noone outside of England will be too shocked. That tells me 1 thing, the group is a free for all.

England wing options are very good IMO

Burgess is very good at the break down think you mean the lineout. No 1 will be surprised to see anyone go out of that group but I cant see England beaten twice.

Gwlad wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Fa, why are you so concerned with English rugby issues? Where exactly are you from?

Standard Sgt Pooly response to anyone he perceives to be a non English fan

Completely lost with that one

No 7&1/2 wrote:Burgess is very good at the break down think you mean the lineout. No 1 will be surprised to see anyone go out of that group but I cant see England beaten twice.

I relunctantly agree, I don't see them being beaten twice, but don't see them winning both either, sadly I do see Wales losing both, but then also see Aus losing both so who knows!

Burgess is decent within the phase play at the breakdown, but his go to decision is just to pull out, he certainly hasn't developed any nous yet!

Not sure I know what you mean by his decision is to just pull out?

What do you mean...just pull out.

One aspect of Burgess play that has surprised people here in England is how quick Burgess appears to have adapted to the breakdown.

Now the lineout...that's a different story.

It doesn't matter...as long as Launchbury is back fit and firing...he's a monster. Englands modern day Richard Hill. With him, Cole, Tom Wood and Robshaw (and Even wee Tom Youngs to a degree) I think our breakdown area should be fine.

I just wish Tom Wood was a slightly better carrier....then there would be no worries.

I've seen Burgess on a nmuber of occasions look to enter a ruck in a defencive situation and think better of it despite the ball being particularly winnable.

Like I said when he's running lines, and securing ball, when things are structured he looks ok, but then so do 15 yr olds when told what to do.

Burgess looks weak when he has to make decisions, and when he acts under pressure, which is perfectly natural, but on the international stage obviously Lancaster would prefer to see him in a non decision making role only.

Burgess looks weak when he has to make decisions, and when he acts under pressure, which is perfectly natural, but on the international stage obviously Lancaster would prefer to see him in a non decision making role only

To be honest that's the role I would love to see Haskell in. Just forcing his physicality on the opposition - very basic...making hard yards, putting in big tackles..and hitting rucks. He's just too inconsistent. Maybe Burgess could be more consistent there.

The curious thing is...surely inside centre is a decision making position also?

Burgess looks rubbish in the centre and very good as a 6 making the exact decisions you don't think he makes. Have you really seen him much at 6 as your view just doesn't tally with what I've seen. He's won quite a few turnovers, 3 in his first match I think and looked very good. The only thing he wasn't involved in is the lineout.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Burgess looks rubbish in the centre and very good as a 6 making the exact decisions you don't think he makes. Have you really seen him much at 6 as your view just doesn't tally with what I've seen. He's won quite a few turnovers, 3 in his first match I think and looked very good. The only thing he wasn't involved in is the lineout.

And therein lies the problem. Although if Launchbury isn't as bad as I have thought he was...can we not utilise him more instead?

You know ive said it a million times before...if only Tom Wood was a bit more active and aggressive carrier I wouldn't even be questioning our need for a 6. I rate Wood very highly indeed.

Fanster are you saying that inside centre is a non decision making role?

I wouldn't say that Burgess is the type of inside centre that many English fans have been craving for.

There's been a desire from many English armchair pundits to see "playmakers" at inside centre with 36 being a fan favourite, Slade being a fan favourite even Farrell has been considered.

Geordiefalcon too early to call Launchbury the modern day Richard Hill.


Fanster England might well struggle at the breakdown but if England can get the better of Wales and Australia at the set piece then the impact will be lessened.

Scrum is an area I expect England to target in particular. A traditional Aussie weakness, a traditional English strength.

Also Wales are vulnerable too - their strength in depth is so poor at TH that they needed to recruit an Englishman to bolster their ranks in that area.

Samson Lee is currently injured and will be short of match practice when the world cup comes around. One of their other TH's Rhodri Jones is injured too.

Though saying that having Francis in there would probably make the Welsh frontrow stronger than it currently is.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Burgess looks rubbish in the centre and very good as a 6 making the exact decisions you don't think he makes. Have you really seen him much at 6 as your view just doesn't tally with what I've seen. He's won quite a few turnovers, 3 in his first match I think and looked very good. The only thing he wasn't involved in is the lineout.

He looked rubbish when tried at centre, out in the open where the crowd can view a huge portion of what he did, he's hidden in the pack where your unable to see what he's doing except clap because you attribute good work done to him.

Realistically the Bath pack has a great front 5, allowing for the backrow to play off a platform. Burgess is not a good 6, however hes a good rugby player.

I've seen him time and time again instinctively pull away from a ruck given the decision, and you have to say thats good coaching, for the first few seasons Burgess instincts should be when in doubt pull out. He is very strong and when he gets gifted opportunities he's alwys going to be strong over the ball, but this is not AP rugby, it's international rugby, and those tiny decisions players make win and lose ball games, take away as many decision making positions from Burgess and the better a player he is, Ford knew that and now Lancaster is mindfull enough to recognise this on the top level stage!

12 isn't a particularly decision making role, they run their lines, they take the ball in, or stay deep and play it wide when the call comes, and they toss a wider pass on turnover, they have to encounter the ruck much less than a 6 will, he can do more damege to his team than a 12 does.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'd love to us try:

6. Vuinipola
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

None of our 6's inspire me with much confidence tbh. Issues we'd have is work rate and line out options....

Yes! Robshaw for the 3rd line out option.

Wood
Robshaw
Billy / Ben

Just doesn't have the offensive capabilities to ask questions of the top teams.