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

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

Yes it is...but his game style is very similar in the no fuss approach, silently getting on with things. The type of player who's influence on a game is noticed more when he's not next to you on the pitch.

I hope he can continue to progress as he has done.

Fanster wrote:

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.

The quality that he has (that others don't at 6) is that he's a momentum changer. A big carry, a big hit - lifts his team mates and the crowd. Easy for me to say, but I'd so take a risk on him in the 31.

spaynter wrote:

Fanster wrote:

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.

The quality that he has (that others don't at 6) is that he's a momentum changer. A big carry, a big hit - lifts his team mates and the crowd. Easy for me to say, but I'd so take a risk on him in the 31.

I probably agree with that, and yes I'd take the risk too! However if Billy, Mako, Lawes, Haskell, Morgan etc can't give you the go forward required, who's place does he take?

I don't want my 6 with ball in hand more than my 8, I want my 8 and 12 carrying and making hard yards!

Fanster wrote:

spaynter wrote:

Fanster wrote:

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.

The quality that he has (that others don't at 6) is that he's a momentum changer. A big carry, a big hit - lifts his team mates and the crowd. Easy for me to say, but I'd so take a risk on him in the 31.

I probably agree with that, and yes I'd take the risk too! However if Billy, Mako, Lawes, Haskell, Morgan etc can't give you the go forward required, who's place does he take?

I don't want my 6 with ball in hand more than my 8, I want my 8 and 12 carrying and making hard yards!

So do I! I just think 8 & 12 isn't enough and 6 needs to be an equal partner. Hence my preference for Billy, Chris, Ben back row.

spaynter wrote:

Fanster wrote:

spaynter wrote:

Fanster wrote:

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.

The quality that he has (that others don't at 6) is that he's a momentum changer. A big carry, a big hit - lifts his team mates and the crowd. Easy for me to say, but I'd so take a risk on him in the 31.

I probably agree with that, and yes I'd take the risk too! However if Billy, Mako, Lawes, Haskell, Morgan etc can't give you the go forward required, who's place does he take?

I don't want my 6 with ball in hand more than my 8, I want my 8 and 12 carrying and making hard yards!

So do I! I just think 8 & 12 isn't enough and 6 needs to be an equal partner. Hence my preference for Billy, Chris, Ben back row.

Can Ben last? Thats a pretty hefty back row option, plenty of beef and carrying ability, but I don't think starting both Billy and Ben would work, neither have 80 minutes regularly, and with so many games they'll both be interchangable at 8.

I'd like to see that though, maybe an option of Lawes, Robshaw, Morgan oooffff!!!

Billy did 80 every game in the 6N. No worries there any more.

I have huge doubts that Ben can, especially with the time out he has had with the bust leg, but then he has been in camp with England for a good while and I am sure things are improving

beshocked wrote:...with 36 being a fan favourite..

I don't think he really is, or ever was, a fan favourite. There were hopes he would turn in the kind of performances which would make him a fan favourite - with the bonus of an amusing surname - but they never materialized. The best that could be said about him is that he did all right. We actually never got to see him develop a partnership with Tuilagi, which was certainly an idea the England coaches liked at one time. It shows how much thinking and circumstances have changed that neither man will even be in the World Cup squad, let alone lining up together in the starting XV.

When Twelvetrees gets cut - as seems likely to happen soon - I doubt there will be too many shedding tears for him. I do think you are right that Slade is being heavily tipped by some as a kind of midfield magician.

lostinwales wrote:Billy did 80 every game in the 6N. No worries there any more.

I have huge doubts that Ben can, especially with the time out he has had with the bust leg, but then he has been in camp with England for a good while  and I am sure things are improving

This isn't the 6 nations though, it's a game every 5 days or so! Every nation needs 2 reliable players in each position to succeed, and Morgan and Billy are surely the 8 options, start them both in 1 game and the next option is? Haskell? Wood?

Once again, not for the first time this week I have to applaud Lancastrs actions in this selection issue, he recognises Burgess strengths and may well turn him into a weapon, as opposed to a potential weakness.

For the record, re 12 I still think England have a massive hole there, one Burgess could fill ala Roberts/Nonu/Darcy etc...

Fanster wrote:

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.

He's shown he's a good 6, if you can't judge a forwards work as you seem to be saying maybe take a step back?

Ben Morgan has been hammered in fitness with the England squad. I have no doubts he can make 80 mins now...especially against Fiji etc...

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

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.

He's shown he's a good 6, if you can't judge a forwards work as you seem to be saying maybe take a step back?

Take a step back from what? My neutral analytical POV? I think Burgess is a very good rugby player, he's done a job at 6 in the AP, but this is not the AP, it's international rugby, of which he has what experience?

There are literally hundreds of cases of good club performances not progressing to international quality whatsoever, especially in an England shirt. I'm saying to give him the best chance of success he needs to be managed, taking an area of the game away that he doesn't excell anyway is a good call, how can you think you know more than Lancaster?

Your neutral view was that you think he's hidden in the pack and were judging him as a 12. Fair enough but most people thought/think he's mediocre at best in midfield and are impressed with his work at 6. He has excelled at 6 in all aspects bar the lineout, as has been mentioned previously it's the lineout Lancaster has quoted as having an issue with.

Rugby fan 36 was tipped to be the next Will Greenwood - a centre who could do everything - great carrier, great boot, great hands, playmaking, great decision making. He was a fan favourite at that time.

Instead 36 has been as you say ok.


36 played with Tuilagi at Leicester - it was never a centre partnership that seemed to gel in my opinion.

Allen-Tuilagi was more effective in my opinion hence partly why 36 went to Gloucester.

My point is that English fans are craving a midfield playmaker - surely with the current balance there is less necessity?

Fanster I think the general agreement is that Burgess has been a more effective 6 than centre.

Fanster wrote:

spaynter wrote:

Fanster wrote:

spaynter wrote:

Fanster wrote:

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.

The quality that he has (that others don't at 6) is that he's a momentum changer. A big carry, a big hit - lifts his team mates and the crowd. Easy for me to say, but I'd so take a risk on him in the 31.

I probably agree with that, and yes I'd take the risk too! However if Billy, Mako, Lawes, Haskell, Morgan etc can't give you the go forward required, who's place does he take?

I don't want my 6 with ball in hand more than my 8, I want my 8 and 12 carrying and making hard yards!

So do I! I just think 8 & 12 isn't enough and 6 needs to be an equal partner. Hence my preference for Billy, Chris, Ben back row.

Can Ben last? Thats a pretty hefty back row option, plenty of beef and carrying ability, but I don't think starting both Billy and Ben would work, neither have 80 minutes regularly, and with so many games they'll both be interchangable at 8.

I'd like to see that though, maybe an option of Lawes, Robshaw, Morgan oooffff!!!

I don't like Lawes in the back row. Not a great carrier IMO. He's a (great) second row.

Fanster wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Billy did 80 every game in the 6N. No worries there any more.

I have huge doubts that Ben can, especially with the time out he has had with the bust leg, but then he has been in camp with England for a good while  and I am sure things are improving

This isn't the 6 nations though, it's a game every 5 days or so! Every nation needs 2 reliable players in each position to succeed, and Morgan and Billy are surely the 8 options, start them both in 1 game and the next option is? Haskell? Wood?

Once again, not for the first time this week I have to applaud Lancastrs actions in this selection issue, he recognises Burgess strengths and may well turn him into a weapon, as opposed to a potential weakness.

For the record, re 12 I still think England have a massive hole there, one Burgess could fill ala Roberts/Nonu/Darcy etc...

Not for England 8-7-7 are the days of rest between our pool games. Then weekends for the knock outs.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Your neutral view was that you think he's hidden in the pack and were judging him as a 12. Fair enough but most people thought/think he's mediocre at best in midfield and are impressed with his work at 6. He has excelled at 6 in all aspects bar the lineout, as has been mentioned previously it's the lineout Lancaster has quoted as having an issue with.

You missing my point entirely I think.

He was initially thought of as a big brash 12, he struggled initially as he was still learning union, then he was given a shot at 6 and looked better because he was hidden from the open field.

He's done well at 6 after a run of games (He didn't look great straight away), and with the platform he gets from the tight 5 he has the ability to get his hands on the ball more, and make front foot tackles.

With England he wouldn't get a platform like he does for Bath, and will have to play a lot of back foot ball at points, like all teams do, this is where him shying away from ruck decisions will show, a bit like Andy Powell used to for Wales!

PS the lineout is one of the easiest areas to learn, start at point A, move to point B, or C if it's needed, then fake, lift, jump etc... Once the timings are there it's pretty simple, the difficulty comes in to reading opponents and reacting. Burgess hasn't excelled there because he's not given a chance, similarly like he wasn't at 12!

Sadly most people are merely armchair fans who see a very thin layer of the game, and not the depths below, this is an issue you have to say Lan aster know more than us and has made a call, one I agree with!

spaynter wrote:

Fanster wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Billy did 80 every game in the 6N. No worries there any more.

I have huge doubts that Ben can, especially with the time out he has had with the bust leg, but then he has been in camp with England for a good while  and I am sure things are improving

This isn't the 6 nations though, it's a game every 5 days or so! Every nation needs 2 reliable players in each position to succeed, and Morgan and Billy are surely the 8 options, start them both in 1 game and the next option is? Haskell? Wood?

Once again, not for the first time this week I have to applaud Lancastrs actions in this selection issue, he recognises Burgess strengths and may well turn him into a weapon, as opposed to a potential weakness.

For the record, re 12 I still think England have a massive hole there, one Burgess could fill ala Roberts/Nonu/Darcy etc...

Not for England 8-7-7 are the days of rest between our pool games. Then weekends for the knock outs.

Perks of a home tournament eh

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Your neutral view was that you think he's hidden in the pack and were judging him as a 12. Fair enough but most people thought/think he's mediocre at best in midfield and are impressed with his work at 6. He has excelled at 6 in all aspects bar the lineout, as has been mentioned previously it's the lineout Lancaster has quoted as having an issue with.

You missing my point entirely I think.

He was initially thought of as a big brash 12, he struggled initially as he was still learning union, then he was given a shot at 6 and looked better because he was hidden from the open field.

He's done well at 6 after a run of games (He didn't look great straight away), and with the platform he gets from the tight 5 he has the ability to get his hands on the ball more, and make front foot tackles.

With England he wouldn't get a platform like he does for Bath, and will have to play a lot of back foot ball at points, like all teams do, this is where him shying away from ruck decisions will show, a bit like Andy Powell used to for Wales!

PS the lineout is one of the easiest areas to learn, start at point A, move to point B, or C if it's needed, then fake, lift, jump etc... Once the timings are there it's pretty simple, the difficulty comes in to reading opponents and reacting. Burgess hasn't excelled there because he's not given a chance, similarly like he wasn't at 12!

Sadly most people are merely armchair fans who see a very thin layer of the game, and not the depths below, this is an issue you have to say Lan aster know more than us and has made a call, one I agree with!

Not sure...think the opinons were split. I for one never saw him as a 12...I always anticipated him coming over as a back rower.

Fenster,

You are correct Lancaster is a level 5 coach I believe (I think that's the highest you can achieve ) so he obviously knows his stuff...and Rowntree is a quality coach as well.

But sometimes he does confuse us England fans with the odd selection or lack of selection etc etc.

I think Lancaster has been a breath of fresh air for English rugby but I don't think he's been perfect in the England head coach role. And saying Burgess will only be considered a 12 is an example of that.

Lawes in the backrow hasn't gone well previously, he is a hard worker and a strong defender, but he is not a particularly good carrier. That is a slight concern I have about the England pack actually, a lack of carriers. The fact that Wood and Lawes aren't brilliant at it means a lot of work for the No.8.

I think the demand for a second distributor has faded now with the emergence of Ford and Joseph. I think with Farrell at 10 and Manu at 13 there was a need for a bit more creativity in the centres. However with Ford and Joseph, we have plenty of creativity but a lack of beef. Which is why (in my opinion) Barritt will be the 1st choice 12 this autumn.

Burgess is going to be a flanker, I think in many ways he would be best served having a proper preseason with Bath, rather than training as a centre with England and then either being discarded or turning out against some semi pros from Uruguay.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Your neutral view was that you think he's hidden in the pack and were judging him as a 12. Fair enough but most people thought/think he's mediocre at best in midfield and are impressed with his work at 6. He has excelled at 6 in all aspects bar the lineout, as has been mentioned previously it's the lineout Lancaster has quoted as having an issue with.

You missing my point entirely I think.

He was initially thought of as a big brash 12, he struggled initially as he was still learning union, then he was given a shot at 6 and looked better because he was hidden from the open field.

He's done well at 6 after a run of games (He didn't look great straight away), and with the platform he gets from the tight 5 he has the ability to get his hands on the ball more, and make front foot tackles.

With England he wouldn't get a platform like he does for Bath, and will have to play a lot of back foot ball at points, like all teams do, this is where him shying away from ruck decisions will show, a bit like Andy Powell used to for Wales!

PS the lineout is one of the easiest areas to learn, start at point A, move to point B, or C if it's needed, then fake, lift, jump etc... Once the timings are there it's pretty simple, the difficulty comes in to reading opponents and reacting. Burgess hasn't excelled there because he's not given a chance, similarly like he wasn't at 12!

Sadly most people are merely armchair fans who see a very thin layer of the game, and not the depths below, this is an issue you have to say Lan aster know more than us and has made a call, one I agree with!

He was actually contesting man of the match in his first game at 6. 3 turnovers, carried well, was cleaning up at the back of the lineout from an overthrow, cleaned up at a scrum gone wrong. Lancaster's call about him only considere a centre was born of the lineout; true or false? You have just said you'd like to see Lawes at 6?!

I think Burgess was initially thought of as a future big nasty machine in the back row, but one who would take time to learn the Union specific skills required in that area. So the best thing to do in the meantime was put him somewhere where he could do a job using the skills he has whilst learning those extra skills he needs. He got game time this way.

The good news is that he has picked up a lot of what he needs in the back row very quickly. But outside of Lancaster (who admittedly has a very specific role in mind) nobody sees him as a center now. He doesn't enjoy it as much and its a much more rigid role than what he is suited to. At 6 he can stay involved, be a destructive tackler and carrier and be a right pain.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Your neutral view was that you think he's hidden in the pack and were judging him as a 12. Fair enough but most people thought/think he's mediocre at best in midfield and are impressed with his work at 6. He has excelled at 6 in all aspects bar the lineout, as has been mentioned previously it's the lineout Lancaster has quoted as having an issue with.

You missing my point entirely I think.

He was initially thought of as a big brash 12, he struggled initially as he was still learning union, then he was given a shot at 6 and looked better because he was hidden from the open field.

He's done well at 6 after a run of games (He didn't look great straight away), and with the platform he gets from the tight 5 he has the ability to get his hands on the ball more, and make front foot tackles.

With England he wouldn't get a platform like he does for Bath, and will have to play a lot of back foot ball at points, like all teams do, this is where him shying away from ruck decisions will show, a bit like Andy Powell used to for Wales!

PS the lineout is one of the easiest areas to learn, start at point A, move to point B, or C if it's needed, then fake, lift, jump etc... Once the timings are there it's pretty simple, the difficulty comes in to reading opponents and reacting. Burgess hasn't excelled there because he's not given a chance, similarly like he wasn't at 12!

Sadly most people are merely armchair fans who see a very thin layer of the game, and not the depths below, this is an issue you have to say Lan aster know more than us and has made a call, one I agree with!

Not sure...think the opinons were split. I for one never saw him as a 12...I always anticipated him coming over as a back rower.

I still see him as a 12 if he wants international rugby, he's been solid at 6 in his first season, learnt his trade in the relative safety of the tight, now is the time to open his game up a bit and see if he can step up to International rugby.

I see Wood, Haskell, maybe even Easter (shock call at 6 maybe) as ahead of Burgess, whereas 12 is wide open, Barritt will do a job, 12trees will be his average self, no Tuilagi, and Burell and Joseph 13 specialists.

When was Twelvetrees tipped as the next Greenwood?

Burrell as a 13 specialist fanster? Even though he's a 12 for his club?

Bathman_in_London wrote:Lawes in the backrow hasn't gone well previously, he is a hard worker and a strong defender, but he is not a particularly good carrier. That is a slight concern I have about the England pack actually, a lack of carriers. The fact that Wood and Lawes aren't brilliant at it means a lot of work for the No.8.

I think the demand for a second distributor has faded now with the emergence of Ford and Joseph. I think with Farrell at 10 and Manu at 13 there was a need for a bit more creativity in the centres. However with Ford and Joseph, we have plenty of creativity but a lack of beef. Which is why (in my opinion) Barritt will be the 1st choice 12 this autumn.

Burgess is going to be a flanker, I think in many ways he would be best served having a proper preseason with Bath, rather than training as a centre with England and then either being discarded or turning out against some semi pros from Uruguay.

Amen...

Been saying it for ages. We have almost zero offensive carriers in the pack bar whoever plays at 8. And Tom Youngs now that he's in.

Now I keep hearing well the 2003 pack didn't have many...yes but the 2003 pack was a big nasty mean grizzled eat you up and spit you out machine.

This England pack ISNT that!!!

lostinwales wrote:I think Burgess was initially thought of as a future big nasty machine in the back row, but one who would take time to learn the Union specific skills required in that area. So the best thing to do in the meantime was put him somewhere where he could do a job using the skills he has whilst learning those extra skills he needs. He got game time this way.

The good news is that he has picked up a lot of what he needs in the back row very quickly. But outside of Lancaster (who admittedly has a very specific role in mind) nobody sees him as a center now. He doesn't enjoy it as much and its a much more rigid role than what he is suited to. At 6 he can stay involved, be a destructive tackler and carrier and be a right pain.

I agree with this to a point, however I don't think the plan was to ever discount him as a centre, the season at 6 was to give him the best chance of gametime and success while learning the game, he then can excell and move to 8 if he shows the ability, or return for a more succesfull tenure at 12.

Ford has managed Burgess brilliantly, and now Lancaster has taken that on well, Burgess has been treated extremely well by Bath and England, and given the greatest platform possible to succeed, as a fan I would take Burgess staying as a club 6 as a failure to convert his potential, and would prefer to see him promoted to 8 or 12 and really show off what he can do!

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:Lawes in the backrow hasn't gone well previously, he is a hard worker and a strong defender, but he is not a particularly good carrier. That is a slight concern I have about the England pack actually, a lack of carriers. The fact that Wood and Lawes aren't brilliant at it means a lot of work for the No.8.

I think the demand for a second distributor has faded now with the emergence of Ford and Joseph. I think with Farrell at 10 and Manu at 13 there was a need for a bit more creativity in the centres. However with Ford and Joseph, we have plenty of creativity but a lack of beef. Which is why (in my opinion) Barritt will be the 1st choice 12 this autumn.

Burgess is going to be a flanker, I think in many ways he would be best served having a proper preseason with Bath, rather than training as a centre with England and then either being discarded or turning out against some semi pros from Uruguay.

Amen...

Been saying it for ages. We have almost zero offensive carriers in the pack bar whoever plays at 8. And Tom Youngs now that he's in.  

Now I keep hearing well the 2003 pack didn't have many...yes but the 2003 pack was a big nasty mean grizzled eat you up and spit you out machine.

This England pack ISNT that!!!

I think the problem with ball carrying forwards is in the perception of club fans, there aren't the big gainline bruising, linebreaking individuals around any more, and the ones that are have to play their role in their systems at international level.

Billy and Ben are as good a ball carriers as they come, yet I'd still select Falatau over either due to his ability to play the game plan and react, at international level even the biggest carriers are swallowed up, it's how they react to getting swallowed up that counts.

England need more breakdown nous IMO, not ball carriers.

No but there are still players who get you over the gainline Fenster.
And im not just talking about hard yard meters...I mean running into gaps, offloading etc.

I just don't think we are the strongest in those areas. And following on from above...I like my 6 to be a good carrier. A hard yard man.

I disagree about the breakdown. Wood, Launchbury, Robshaw, Cole, Youngs...I think we have ample ability at the breakdown...I think the issue we have there (and again ive said this before) is that we are very passive in those situations.

You watch New Zealand for example (the team Lancaster is trying to emulate) and when they see an opportunity the whole pack is in there aggressively at speed taking anyone out the way to get that ball.
We don't react that way.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:Lawes in the backrow hasn't gone well previously, he is a hard worker and a strong defender, but he is not a particularly good carrier. That is a slight concern I have about the England pack actually, a lack of carriers. The fact that Wood and Lawes aren't brilliant at it means a lot of work for the No.8.

I think the demand for a second distributor has faded now with the emergence of Ford and Joseph. I think with Farrell at 10 and Manu at 13 there was a need for a bit more creativity in the centres. However with Ford and Joseph, we have plenty of creativity but a lack of beef. Which is why (in my opinion) Barritt will be the 1st choice 12 this autumn.

Burgess is going to be a flanker, I think in many ways he would be best served having a proper preseason with Bath, rather than training as a centre with England and then either being discarded or turning out against some semi pros from Uruguay.

Amen...

Been saying it for ages. We have almost zero offensive carriers in the pack bar whoever plays at 8. And Tom Youngs now that he's in.  

Now I keep hearing well the 2003 pack didn't have many...yes but the 2003 pack was a big nasty mean grizzled eat you up and spit you out machine.

This England pack ISNT that!!!

You say that but Thompson and Vickery were both big carriers, as were Johnson, Grewcock and Dayglo. Probably more than we have now. Certainly Billy, Youngs and either Mako/Marler will probably end up doing a lot. Robshaw makes a lot of carries too to be fair, although I see him more as a linkman than a rampaging yard-maker.

I remember reading that in Gatland's Wasps team, the forward had fairly defined roles in the loose, Leota for example was a carrier and others were there to clear rucks. I wonder if there is a similar structure for England currently.

Bathman_in_London wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:Lawes in the backrow hasn't gone well previously, he is a hard worker and a strong defender, but he is not a particularly good carrier. That is a slight concern I have about the England pack actually, a lack of carriers. The fact that Wood and Lawes aren't brilliant at it means a lot of work for the No.8.

I think the demand for a second distributor has faded now with the emergence of Ford and Joseph. I think with Farrell at 10 and Manu at 13 there was a need for a bit more creativity in the centres. However with Ford and Joseph, we have plenty of creativity but a lack of beef. Which is why (in my opinion) Barritt will be the 1st choice 12 this autumn.

Burgess is going to be a flanker, I think in many ways he would be best served having a proper preseason with Bath, rather than training as a centre with England and then either being discarded or turning out against some semi pros from Uruguay.

Amen...

Been saying it for ages. We have almost zero offensive carriers in the pack bar whoever plays at 8. And Tom Youngs now that he's in.  

Now I keep hearing well the 2003 pack didn't have many...yes but the 2003 pack was a big nasty mean grizzled eat you up and spit you out machine.

This England pack ISNT that!!!

You say that but Thompson and Vickery were both big carriers, as were Johnson, Grewcock and Dayglo. Probably more than we have now. Certainly Billy, Youngs and either Mako/Marler will probably end up doing a lot. Robshaw makes a lot of carries too to be fair, although I see him more as a linkman than a rampaging yard-maker.

I remember reading that in Gatland's Wasps team, the forward had fairly defined roles in the loose, Leota for example was a carrier and others were there to clear rucks. I wonder if there is a similar structure for England currently.

I wouldn't be surprised Bathman, possibly working in with the ability to play 80 mins at a high tempo. Carrying tires you quickly etc etc....

GeordieFalcon wrote:No but there are still players who get you over the gainline Fenster.
And im not just talking about hard yard meters...I mean running into gaps, offloading etc.

I just don't think we are the strongest in those areas.

I disagree about the breakdown. Wood, Launchbury, Robshaw, Cole, Youngs...I think we have ample ability at the breakdown...I think the issue we have there (and again ive said this before) is that we are very passive in those situations.

You watch New Zealand for example (the team Lancaster is trying to emulate) and when they see an opportunity the whole pack is in there aggressively at speed taking anyone out the way to get that ball.
We don't react that way.

Your 10 years behind with the pseudo theory of comentators, highlighting NZ flooding a breakdown after a call!

The game evolves by the month at international level, and tha fact we all keep 'emulating' or following NZ's lead is the reason we are all chasing them!

Everytime a new peice of play is trending in the NH it either comes from NZ or a NZ coach, its infuriating!

Flooding the breakdown is a result of defencive dominance, which is a result of a hit on the right side of the gainline, which is a result of linespeed, which is a result of players being on their feet ready to go, which is a result of an individual being a nuisance at the breakdown and slowing the ball down! This is Englands issue, Robshaw works hard, and Cole is good, but outside those 2 opposition gets quicker ball, and there is no head to the ground sniffer dog in the England pack.

Take NZ v SA, SA had tons of turnover, because NZ could cope with the SA attack on the whole, and knew at every other ruck there would be a scenario where a kiwi could get to the ball, meaning SA struggled to go 3 phases with decent ball, whereas they were happy to concede the turnovers in the knowledge that when they managed 3 phases they would all be quick rucks and they could play from that platform.

This is what NH rugby doesn't seem to understand, having the ball is great, but having it for the sake of having it isn't, and we're all guilty of that up here!

Your 10 years behind with the pseudo theory of comentators, highlighting NZ flooding a breakdown after a call!

Not quite mate...when its on they still do it....

The game evolves by the month at international level, and tha fact we all keep 'emulating' or following NZ's lead is the reason we are all chasing them!

Trust me Im not a fan of "emulating" NZ so closely as we have or appear to be.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Your 10 years behind with the pseudo theory of comentators, highlighting NZ flooding a breakdown after a call!

Not quite mate...when its on they still do it....

The game evolves by the month at international level, and tha fact we all keep 'emulating' or following NZ's lead is the reason we are all chasing them!

Trust me Im not a fan of "emulating" NZ so closely as we have or appear to be.

Everyone floods a breakdown when it's on, it was supposedly a kiwi thing that seperated them from us 10 years ago... It was, and is not the difference!

The difference between NZ and everybody else is that they solve problems, we play rugby, it really is as simple as that!!!

Burgess will never be a good centre, he lacks the skill set.

He could however be a very good 6 once he gets to grips with the set piece and breakdown. He looked pretty good almost instantly for Bath, I can't recall him ever looking anything past poor at 12.

Burgess is a rampaging beast. I think to get the best out of him you need him free to rampage and be beastly. The best position to do that from is 6.

lostinwales wrote:Burgess is a rampaging beast. I think to get the best out of him you need him free to rampage and be beastly. The best position to do that from is 6.

Seconded.

Fanster wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Your neutral view was that you think he's hidden in the pack and were judging him as a 12. Fair enough but most people thought/think he's mediocre at best in midfield and are impressed with his work at 6. He has excelled at 6 in all aspects bar the lineout, as has been mentioned previously it's the lineout Lancaster has quoted as having an issue with.

You missing my point entirely I think.

He was initially thought of as a big brash 12, he struggled initially as he was still learning union, then he was given a shot at 6 and looked better because he was hidden from the open field.

He's done well at 6 after a run of games (He didn't look great straight away), and with the platform he gets from the tight 5 he has the ability to get his hands on the ball more, and make front foot tackles.

With England he wouldn't get a platform like he does for Bath, and will have to play a lot of back foot ball at points, like all teams do, this is where him shying away from ruck decisions will show, a bit like Andy Powell used to for Wales!

PS the lineout is one of the easiest areas to learn, start at point A, move to point B, or C if it's needed, then fake, lift, jump etc... Once the timings are there it's pretty simple, the difficulty comes in to reading opponents and reacting. Burgess hasn't excelled there because he's not given a chance, similarly like he wasn't at 12!

Sadly most people are merely armchair fans who see a very thin layer of the game, and not the depths below, this is an issue you have to say Lan aster know more than us and has made a call, one I agree with!

Not sure...think the opinons were split. I for one never saw him as a 12...I always anticipated him coming over as a back rower.

I still see him as a 12 if he wants international rugby, he's been solid at 6 in his first season, learnt his trade in the relative safety of the tight, now is the time to open his game up a bit and see if he can step up to International rugby.

I see Wood, Haskell, maybe even Easter (shock call at 6 maybe) as ahead of Burgess, whereas 12 is wide open, Barritt will do a job, 12trees will be his average self, no Tuilagi, and Burell and Joseph 13 specialists.

Not really sure how you can patronise others on their rugby views when you suggest Nick Easter as an option to play blindside

lostinwales wrote:Burgess is a rampaging beast. I think to get the best out of him you need him free to rampage and be beastly. The best position to do that from is 6.

Isnt that what we wanted Haskell to do....?

beshocked wrote:Rugby fan 36 was tipped to be the next Will Greenwood - a centre who could do everything - great carrier, great boot, great hands, playmaking, great decision making. He was a fan favourite at that time...

We disagree but I don't think it's a significant difference. I do remember him coming on as a replacement in an early game for Leicester, slotting a pressure penalty, and seeing pundits immediately push him forward as an England prospect, so I know where you are coming from.

I just don't think he ever did enough, at club level or Test, to be given the label "fan favourite". Twickenham certainly never rose as one when Billy Twelvetrees had the ball. There were definitely hopes in some quarters he could become the next Will Greenwood but, even then, his supporters were more pragmatic than passionate.

Rugby fan When I say fan favourite I meant he was the player people clamouring for to be in the side.


Fans are fickle though and time stops for no one.

Only last year Burrell was the golden centre with 3 tries in 5 6 nations games.

Danny Care was the outstanding 9 with two tries to his name.

This year Care has fallen to 3rd choice 9, Burrell had a difficult 2nd season.

In 2013 Corbisiero was a Lions hero, now he's arguably only 4th choice LH for England.

Perhaps in the future 36 will evolve into the new Greenwood....

The no 2 and 12 shirt in particular are quite open.

T.Youngs is of course the clear favourite for the 2 shirt but in terms of height and weight LCD and George are more like a traditional hooker, they have more in common with Hartley IMO and of course Hartley was generally favoured over Youngs.

Then there is the wild card Rob Webber.

As for 12 - so open with Barritt,Burrell,Slade,Farrell,Burgess,Eastmond and 36 all potential options. That's 7 options for one position in the squad - seems a little excessive personally.

The only person I see quite often comparing Twelvetrees to Greenwood is you beshocked! Out of those options for centre it's interesting they can or have all played over both centre positions for club or country bar possibly Farrell who has only ever played 12 as far as I know and Slade who's only played 13?

I think Youngs will start at 2, but I really think he will face some challenge from George. He's had a cracking season and has size on his side.

But people shouldn't underestimate Youngs he really is a cannonball...for all he's small height wise he's still got 16st packed in to that...which makes him a really solid individual, and we haven't seen him start the full 80 mins regularly for England.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think Youngs will start at 2, but I really think he will face some challenge from George. He's had a cracking season and has size on his side.

But people shouldn't underestimate Youngs he really is a cannonball...for all he's small height wise he's still got 16st packed in to that...which makes him a really solid individual, and we haven't seen him start the full 80 mins regularly for England.

If he sorts out his set piece, Youngs is definitely an upgrade on Hartley. His carrying is better and his work rate in defence at the ruck is superior. But will also be interesting to see how George goes as well.

I also think that with Tom Youngs he had a lot of exposure when he first made a breakthrough at 2 having converted from center. He showed a lot of promise but had problems.

He is a lot more experienced now, and the new scrum laws probably help him also.

spaynter wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Burgess is a rampaging beast. I think to get the best out of him you need him free to rampage and be beastly. The best position to do that from is 6.

Seconded.

Wait what? 6 is the rampaging ball carrying beast position? Why havn't you told the entire history of the sport, i'm sure it would be keen to hear that!!!

I agree Burgess is a big brash strong runner and defender, thats why he should be promoted to 8 or 12 when he has developed enough, 6 is an intimediary position, for him to learn, because 6 can allow his strengths to shine while minimizing his weaknesses and hiding him in the tight.

Billy has played 80 minutes regularly for Sarries, throughout all playoffs and the entire 6N.  He carried like a beast, was the 2nd highest tackler in the tournament (6N) and easily has the work rate to manage.  He's also regularly pulling off 1-2 turnovers each game now. Oh, and England have no less than a week between any of their pool games.  We could almost certainly play Hask at 8 against Uruguay if we ran the flowerpot men out for the rest of the pool games.

Burgess started only 1 game in the AP at 12, the vast majority were at 13 outside Eastmond.  At 12, he had Joseph at 13 doing the defensive organisation.  In that single game at 12, he was 3rd highest tackler out of both teams (10/2), he put in several huge hits as well (killing the attack), carried 60m in 12 carries (+9 passes), made 2 clean breaks, beat 10 defenders and scored a try, winning MOTM.  Burgess did not fail at 12, he failed at 13 when he had no one organising the defence, and was in what is often considered one of the hardest positions to defend in, it also meant he got his hands on the ball less. If they think he can do it, and it's kept simple for him, I believe he can. I do believe however 6 is a better position for him in the long term.

36 was compared to Greenwood by a lot of people, he has it all, and sometimes it shows.  He also has an absolutely massive workrate (9/10 it was one of him, Launch or Robshaw chasing back/supporting a break), and all the necessary skills, he simply doesn't have anything like the consistency required.

Given Tigers powerful scrum, I cannot see that Youngs is bad in the scrum.  Lineout is an issue, especially since tigers pretty much only throw to the front when he's throwing in. He does offer another good carrying option, which our pack can often lack.

So you think at 6 his strengths shine and it minimises weakness but you want to move him to where he was mediocre and didn't get enough ball. Hide him in the tight?!

Which match did he pick up motm raggs?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you think at 6 his strengths shine and it minimises weakness but you want to move him to where he was mediocre and didn't get enough ball. Hide him in the tight?!

You don't seem to consider that Burgess is a development process, he's moulding into the union player he can be, 6 suited him in his first season because he can follow more orders andnot get caught in the wider chanells where his weaknesses can be highlighted and exploited!

Just because he didn't have the game to play 12 straight away (and lets be honest who thought he could), doesn't mean 12 isn't going to be his position going forward, he certainly has the attributes ball in hand, and defencively, he just needs to plug away and keep working on his game.

Like I said, 6 isn't a vital position, and lesser players can be hidden there, there are lots of examples of average players playing at higher level at 6, I'll be extremely dissapointed if a player of Burgess physical attributes cannot progress to at least 8, if not 12, i'll view the experiment of him cross coding a failure if he stays at 6.