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

Is it a big blow? Perhaps not in your eyes but the backrow options are uninspiring. There is no player that might shake things up regardless of whether that was Slater (barely any gametime,inexperienced, Itoje (showed great club form,inexperienced) Burgess (inexperienced in RU but people raved about his performance at 6).

Ksevic as a proper traditional 7 might have asked some questions and warm ups are an ideal time to try out new players.

Wing - there's little experience there - Ashton would have given it some.

I am disappointed.

As I keep saying the only part of the squad with potential is Hooker and Lancaster will probably squander that by starting Webber in the first warm up - hopefully it's George/LCD or LCD/George.

Rugby Fan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

DaveM wrote:But the squad isn't finalised. It's entirely possible that neither Easter or Twelvetrees  will ultimately make the cut.

Yes but in my opinion neither should have even been in the extended squad.

It's likely the squad will end up with a lot of the people we can all agree on. As Lancaster trims it down, however, we get an idea of who he sees as first choice replacements. The fact Twelvetrees is still in the squad suggests that, even if cut, he's an injury away from getting back in, which seems too high in the pecking order.

As an aside, I've read speculation that Eastmond might consider a return to League, presumably because he doesn't see his international ambitions playing out as he hoped. That would be a real shame.

It would be a shame but totally understandable and I wouldn't blame the lad. He could be a major success in league.

He also has Devoto pushing him at Bath now...so he could even lose his spot there.

He should have been a scrum half when he switched across...as I said from day 1

Pretty happy with the 3 wing options overall but I would want to gife Watson a run at full back as well, not sure Ashtons experience would or should be considered over the performances of the other 3.

Still not convinced Itoje will be a 6 in the end but he or Slater could have been a useful bench option but again you have players like Haskell Easter and guys in the starting lineup who can cover. Lots of versatility in the squad to be fair.

Expect to see Slade and Burgess in for the weekend, hope im wrong on Burgess' centre potential.

no 7 & 1/2

Well Webber got picked because of his "experience", Corbisiero got picked on his "experience", why not Ashton?

Haskell,Easter etc can cover but they are not exactly inspirational. Are they players you would back to influence a game positively off the bench?

If you could combine Haskell and Easter into one player that would be great but unfortunately that's not possible.

Pinning my hopes on Lancaster doing the right thing at hooker - needs to pick LCD/George, George/LCD vs France.

The rules just aren't as hard and fast as you think.

beshocked wrote:...Lancaster's flawed logic - if you play poorly against NZ away from home - you're seen as surplus to requirements and will struggle to get another cap for England - e.g. Yarde,Ashton and Eastmond.
Brown and Care also had poor tours but still feature, with Brown as likely first choice. Parling was way down many of our lists before NZ but he had a good tour, and Lancaster has stuck with him. On the other hand, Slater had a good tour but, like Itoje, didn't survive the firs cut.

Play poorly in an international tournament - like May be recalled because he looked good in training.
Ashton played poorly in his last England starts but came out well in the fitness stats and yet hasn't been retained

Play poorly for a club season - be recalled - Corbisiero and Webber or retained like 36.
Corbs didn't get a full season, and it's hardly surprising Webber is still one of the four hookers. Don't like seeing 36 still around either but he had an average season, not a poor one.

Play well for your club - like Ewers, Kvesic, Itoje, Ashton, Eastmond don't get retained or in Ewers case even be picked in the first place.
There isn't room for everyone. Off the top of my head, Myler, Wade, Lewington, Daly, Simpson, Auterac and Waldrom played well for their clubs. It's impracticalfor that to be the only criterion for Test selection.

Pick player with less rugby union experience than any other player in the squad and keep him but won't pick other inexperienced players because they are supposedly too inexperienced.
It's pretty clear, then, that experience is only one factor, which doesn't alone determine selection for anyone. Lancaster is neither favouring experience in every case, or shunning inexperience. Our starting XV will likely be short on caps compared with the teams we face.

Lancaster isn't being illogical or inconsistent. He's just making judgements which don't happen to match all those of everyone else. For instance, I would have been happy to see Ashton make the final cut but the coaches don't like his work under the high ball. They aren't the only ones: Austin Healey talked up Ashton this year but pointed out the same problem. We can disagree, or believe it is not important, but it's hardly illogical and inconsistent.

I think Webber is there for his experience as we re 1 knock away from the 3rd choice hooker with no experience playing. I wouldnt have him and if the other 2 play well I dont think we will. If we take 5 props Corbs could conceivably cover, I d take Mullan and 6 props, though Ihavent sat down yet and worked out all the permutations.

Its not as if Lancaster is afraid of giving people a chance if he thinks they re a better option.

Rugby fan

Care and Brown have some good will in the bank from 2014 6 nations, as it stands Care is 2nd or 3rd choice 9 anyway. Brown has credit in the bank too.

Slater barely played last season - he was lucky to make the 50.

Ashton hasn't had a fair run in a while - NZ away with a centre partnership who didn't defend well is not a fair indication.

Corbisiero was still poor and hasn't played for England in a long time.

The difference between a player like Care and Webber is that Care played very well in 2014, Webber hasn't for some time.

Myler - pointless to pick him as his ship has sailed plus you have Farrell,Ford and Cipriani - all more experienced at international level.
Wade - he probably was unlucky
Auterac - 2nd choice LH at Bath, needs to be starting the big games.
Lewington - don't know enough about him to make a call.
Waldrom - arguably unlucky not to be 3rd no 8 but then you have Billy and Morgan
Simpson - Care has good will in the bank, Wigglesworth had a decent season,Youngs did well.
Daly - inexperienced, overshadowed by Slade and Joseph but might be the next 13 if there's an injury.

Personally I think Lancaster is being illogical but we'll see what his warm up team looks like.

Morgan still hasn't played since breaking his leg. I can't see why retaining Easter for the moment until Morgan gets a game under his belt is controversial.

England haven't used a "traditional 7" as first choice once under Lancaster so I don't see the absence of one as very surprising either.

thomh fair point but Easter is 36 years old and not getting any younger.

Perhaps England haven't used a traditional 7 but I think they should try it.

England are 4th in the world, not 1st,2nd or 3rd. Quite clearly improvements need to be made somewhere.

Hartley's ban could be a blessing in disguise if Lancaster utilises the opportunity properly.

Lancaster like any other human being is not perfect and makes mistakes. Someone has to challenge his decisions or we will all become nodding dogs and yes men.

Lancaster has a view on how he wants the team to play and the qualities he wants in his players. His judgement and his call. Personally I think he should take a little more risk on "flair" players who will take risks and break open defences even if thats at a greater risk of making mistakes. Thats my judgement.

I think his approach is limiting in the modern game and will win 6 nations, get you to the top 4 in the world and semis in the RC but I think tht bit of risk he does not want to take ultimatly will limit the team.

However - you chose a coach, he has his philosophy and you let him run with that.

Funnily enough there appears to be more calls for him to go the gnarly way TJ or at least balance it out. What flair players are you thinking? Wade over Watson maybe but Watson is hardly a water carrier. Eastmond who didntr eally offer the sparkling feet he shows at Bath along with some suspect kicking and tackling?

thomh wrote:Morgan still hasn't played since breaking his leg. I can't see why retaining Easter for the moment until Morgan gets a game under his belt is controversial.

England haven't used a "traditional 7" as first choice once under Lancaster so I don't see the absence of one as very surprising either.

Well strictly speaking Lancaster only likes big carriers at 8. So if its a replacement for Morgan then Waldrom should have been next in line after his superb season. Not Easter.

I just think its a general trend. He wants big guys who don't make mistakes. Eastmond is one player I was thinking of who misses out and the possibility of playing Easter shows the sort of player he values. Cipriani is another example. Capable of unlocking defenses with great play, makes errors, 3rd in the pecking order behind ford( no question no 1) and Farrell a by the numbers unexciting player who makes few mistakes

Flankers through out the pack, general alround work horses that make little mistakes.

That's what he wants and that what we have.

He's kind of been forced to go with some flair in the backs..with Farrell out of form and Manu injured.

I cant agree TJ, Lancaster has given a lot of young flair players a chance but it would be silly to ignore a player as good as Farrel just because you dont see him as attacking. To be fair to Cipriani hes done well this year but wasn t really selectable before then.

Again Easter is good player ironically probably the number 8 with the most flair. I dont see him going personally.

beshocked wrote:thomh fair point but Easter is 36 years old and not getting any younger.

Perhaps England haven't used a traditional 7 but I think they should try it.

England are 4th in the world, not 1st,2nd or 3rd. Quite clearly improvements need to be made somewhere.

Hartley's ban could be a blessing in disguise if Lancaster utilises the opportunity properly.

Lancaster like any other human being is not perfect and makes mistakes. Someone has to challenge his decisions or we will all become nodding dogs and yes men.

Ultimately perhaps but Kvesic hasn't quite kicked on yet and now isn't the time for experiments - Robshaw will be at 7 no question.

On Easter's age - Easter v Waldrom is an interesting one, but I guess Easter's just-about ability to play 4 swung it. Either way - I just don't see anything wrong with having an extra 8 in the squad at this moment.

I agree we need to improve. I just don't think more new faces right now is the way to do it. Guys like Ford, Joseph, Nowell etc are all new enough and a whole pre-season together should do more good than adding more debutants. Burgess is clearly being made an exception in a position which no-one has nailed down for a decade.

A team with the likes of Itoje, Clifford, Wade etc I think could give Australia a real go on the away tour next year, but would be too uncertain right now.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

thomh wrote:Morgan still hasn't played since breaking his leg. I can't see why retaining Easter for the moment until Morgan gets a game under his belt is controversial.

England haven't used a "traditional 7" as first choice once under Lancaster so I don't see the absence of one as very surprising either.

Well strictly speaking Lancaster only likes big carriers at 8. So if its a replacement for Morgan then Waldrom should have been next in line after his superb season. Not Easter.

Has the trauma of 30-3 in Cardiff made you erase the memory GF? Hopefully Lancaster has learnt about not putting a flanker at 8, but I think the big carrier point is more just that that's what we've had available with Morgan and Vunipola, rather than a particular selection rule.

Can we have some muscle in there aswell though...not just flair.

Waldrom is an 8?? Not a flanker?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Waldrom is an 8?? Not a flanker?

Yes but Lancaster played Wood at 8 for 4 games after Morgan's injury in 2013, culminating with the 30-3 in Cardiff, rather than calling up Easter or Waldrom, so I'm not sure your claim that Lancaster only likes a big carrier at 8 holds up, even if he's learnt his lesson about not putting a flanker there.

Wood should never have been at 8 full stop, but that's another story.

thomh wrote:...Lancaster played Wood at 8 for 4 games after Morgan's injury in 2013, culminating with the 30-3 in Cardiff, rather than calling up Easter or Waldrom, so I'm not sure your claim that Lancaster only likes a big carrier at 8 holds up...

That was a horrible decision, which I hated as soon as I heard it. Easter was an obvious makeshift choice for that team, although we'll never know what difference he might have made

I don't think the decision told us anything about Lancaster's preferred number 8 archetype. It did tell us that he places great value on squad continuity during a competition. It's the reason injuries to Myler and Roko saw them sidelined during the last 6N. Lancaster prefers players who have taken full part in camps, rather than dropping someone in from outside.

You're right to an extent, but I think it did tell us that he doesn't necessarily value a ball carrying 8 above all else, which is what was implied.

Anyway, we know who the 8s will be so it's a bit of a non-point.

thomh wrote:Anyway, we know who the 8s will be so it's a bit of a non-point.

I really hope it is a non-point. By which I mean that if Billy and Ben go down early, I hope Lancaster doesn't think about playing Wood at 8 over a drafted-in Easter just because he's been in camp longer.

thomh wrote:You're right to an extent, but I think it did tell us that he doesn't necessarily value a ball carrying 8 above all else, which is what was implied.

Anyway, we know who the 8s will be so it's a bit of a non-point.

To be fair, injuries permitting, we know who:
123456789101112131415 will be

thomh wrote:

beshocked wrote:thomh fair point but Easter is 36 years old and not getting any younger.

Perhaps England haven't used a traditional 7 but I think they should try it.

England are 4th in the world, not 1st,2nd or 3rd. Quite clearly improvements need to be made somewhere.

Hartley's ban could be a blessing in disguise if Lancaster utilises the opportunity properly.

Lancaster like any other human being is not perfect and makes mistakes. Someone has to challenge his decisions or we will all become nodding dogs and yes men.

Ultimately perhaps but Kvesic hasn't quite kicked on yet and now isn't the time for experiments - Robshaw will be at 7 no question.

On Easter's age - Easter v Waldrom is an interesting one, but I guess Easter's just-about ability to play 4 swung it. Either way - I just don't see anything wrong with having an extra 8 in the squad at this moment.

I agree we need to improve. I just don't think more new faces right now is the way to do it. Guys like Ford, Joseph, Nowell etc are all new enough and a whole pre-season together should do more good than adding more debutants. Burgess is clearly being made an exception in a position which no-one has nailed down for a decade.

A team with the likes of Itoje, Clifford, Wade etc I think could give Australia a real go on the away tour next year, but would be too uncertain right now.

Yes that's great.... instead of using 3 warm up games to try out players let's throw people in for their first cap against Australia away....

It's this kind of flawed logic Lancaster loves - throw debutants in against France away but don't pick a talented youngster like Itoje for RWC warm ups.

Not too uncertain to throw in certain players is it? Lancaster is happy to make gambles like Burgess. If he pays off I will acknowledge I was wrong but I think it will be one that will fail.

England and Lancaster have so many resources at their disposal - need to be doing better than aspiring to stay 4th in the world and being happy with no GS in the 6 nations.

Wales showed their lack of strength of depth against Ireland but you know what it probably won't matter - when it comes to the RWC they'll probably be as good as England because they utilise their limited resources better than England do their large resources.

beshocked wrote:

thomh wrote:

beshocked wrote:thomh fair point but Easter is 36 years old and not getting any younger.

Perhaps England haven't used a traditional 7 but I think they should try it.

England are 4th in the world, not 1st,2nd or 3rd. Quite clearly improvements need to be made somewhere.

Hartley's ban could be a blessing in disguise if Lancaster utilises the opportunity properly.

Lancaster like any other human being is not perfect and makes mistakes. Someone has to challenge his decisions or we will all become nodding dogs and yes men.

Ultimately perhaps but Kvesic hasn't quite kicked on yet and now isn't the time for experiments - Robshaw will be at 7 no question.

On Easter's age - Easter v Waldrom is an interesting one, but I guess Easter's just-about ability to play 4 swung it. Either way - I just don't see anything wrong with having an extra 8 in the squad at this moment.

I agree we need to improve. I just don't think more new faces right now is the way to do it. Guys like Ford, Joseph, Nowell etc are all new enough and a whole pre-season together should do more good than adding more debutants. Burgess is clearly being made an exception in a position which no-one has nailed down for a decade.

A team with the likes of Itoje, Clifford, Wade etc I think could give Australia a real go on the away tour next year, but would be too uncertain right now.

Yes that's great.... instead of using 3 warm up games to try out players let's throw people in for their first cap against Australia away....

It's this kind of flawed logic Lancaster loves - throw debutants in against France away but don't pick a talented youngster like Itoje for RWC warm ups.

Not too uncertain to throw in certain players is it? Lancaster is happy to make gambles like Burgess. If he pays off I will acknowledge I was wrong but I think it will be one that will fail.

England and Lancaster have so many resources at their disposal - need to be doing better than aspiring to stay 4th in the world and being happy with no GS in the 6 nations.

Wales showed their lack of strength of depth against Ireland but you know what it probably won't matter - when it comes to the RWC they'll probably be as good as England because they utilise their limited resources better than England do their large resources.

Wales could have picked a stronger team vs Ireland, Ireland picked a stronger more experienced side after Wales showed their cards. Best, Ross, Ryan and Heaslip all quite regular first team players.

Realistically Wales only selected one first team player on the bench in Faletau. Your comments on strength and depth are a bit far fetched.

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote:

thomh wrote:

beshocked wrote:thomh fair point but Easter is 36 years old and not getting any younger.

Perhaps England haven't used a traditional 7 but I think they should try it.

England are 4th in the world, not 1st,2nd or 3rd. Quite clearly improvements need to be made somewhere.

Hartley's ban could be a blessing in disguise if Lancaster utilises the opportunity properly.

Lancaster like any other human being is not perfect and makes mistakes. Someone has to challenge his decisions or we will all become nodding dogs and yes men.

Ultimately perhaps but Kvesic hasn't quite kicked on yet and now isn't the time for experiments - Robshaw will be at 7 no question.

On Easter's age - Easter v Waldrom is an interesting one, but I guess Easter's just-about ability to play 4 swung it. Either way - I just don't see anything wrong with having an extra 8 in the squad at this moment.

I agree we need to improve. I just don't think more new faces right now is the way to do it. Guys like Ford, Joseph, Nowell etc are all new enough and a whole pre-season together should do more good than adding more debutants. Burgess is clearly being made an exception in a position which no-one has nailed down for a decade.

A team with the likes of Itoje, Clifford, Wade etc I think could give Australia a real go on the away tour next year, but would be too uncertain right now.

Yes that's great.... instead of using 3 warm up games to try out players let's throw people in for their first cap against Australia away....

It's this kind of flawed logic Lancaster loves - throw debutants in against France away but don't pick a talented youngster like Itoje for RWC warm ups.

Not too uncertain to throw in certain players is it? Lancaster is happy to make gambles like Burgess. If he pays off I will acknowledge I was wrong but I think it will be one that will fail.

England and Lancaster have so many resources at their disposal - need to be doing better than aspiring to stay 4th in the world and being happy with no GS in the 6 nations.

Wales showed their lack of strength of depth against Ireland but you know what it probably won't matter - when it comes to the RWC they'll probably be as good as England because they utilise their limited resources better than England do their large resources.

Wales could have picked a stronger team vs Ireland, Ireland picked a stronger more experienced side after Wales showed their cards. Best, Ross, Ryan and Heaslip all quite regular first team players.

Realistically Wales only selected one first team player on the bench in Faletau. Your comments on strength and depth are a bit far fetched.

Yet its a stick used to beat English rugby with all too often.

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote:

thomh wrote:

beshocked wrote:thomh fair point but Easter is 36 years old and not getting any younger.

Perhaps England haven't used a traditional 7 but I think they should try it.

England are 4th in the world, not 1st,2nd or 3rd. Quite clearly improvements need to be made somewhere.

Hartley's ban could be a blessing in disguise if Lancaster utilises the opportunity properly.

Lancaster like any other human being is not perfect and makes mistakes. Someone has to challenge his decisions or we will all become nodding dogs and yes men.

Ultimately perhaps but Kvesic hasn't quite kicked on yet and now isn't the time for experiments - Robshaw will be at 7 no question.

On Easter's age - Easter v Waldrom is an interesting one, but I guess Easter's just-about ability to play 4 swung it. Either way - I just don't see anything wrong with having an extra 8 in the squad at this moment.

I agree we need to improve. I just don't think more new faces right now is the way to do it. Guys like Ford, Joseph, Nowell etc are all new enough and a whole pre-season together should do more good than adding more debutants. Burgess is clearly being made an exception in a position which no-one has nailed down for a decade.

A team with the likes of Itoje, Clifford, Wade etc I think could give Australia a real go on the away tour next year, but would be too uncertain right now.

Yes that's great.... instead of using 3 warm up games to try out players let's throw people in for their first cap against Australia away....

It's this kind of flawed logic Lancaster loves - throw debutants in against France away but don't pick a talented youngster like Itoje for RWC warm ups.

Not too uncertain to throw in certain players is it? Lancaster is happy to make gambles like Burgess. If he pays off I will acknowledge I was wrong but I think it will be one that will fail.

England and Lancaster have so many resources at their disposal - need to be doing better than aspiring to stay 4th in the world and being happy with no GS in the 6 nations.

Wales showed their lack of strength of depth against Ireland but you know what it probably won't matter - when it comes to the RWC they'll probably be as good as England because they utilise their limited resources better than England do their large resources.

Wales could have picked a stronger team vs Ireland, Ireland picked a stronger more experienced side after Wales showed their cards. Best, Ross, Ryan and Heaslip all quite regular first team players.

Realistically Wales only selected one first team player on the bench in Faletau. Your comments on strength and depth are a bit far fetched.

gats and Schmidt spoke about team make up before the game. Howley also stated that the result mattered.
What it showed is that Wales only TH back up is an uncapped player who maybe first choice against England.
I could go on further but this an England thread.

maestegmafia

You've only got one decent no 8 IMO. You're struggling at TH - hence having to tempt Francis to play for Wales.

Injury to Scott Williams or Jamie Roberts would leave you clutching at straws in the centres.

An ageing Jenkins and Paul James who got stuffed in the AP final doesn't point to a healthy selection at LH. Lots of experience but perhaps not form?

If Webb is injured what do you do? Pick the out of form Phillips?

Lose Biggar to injury and you have to play Priestland who divides Welsh fans.

Basically Wales are far more vulnerable to injuries than England.

England might have a bit of trouble if T.Youngs or Robshaw are injured but in most positions well stocked.

If Itoje was Welsh he would probably be 2nd choice blindside behind Lydiate. England on the other hand won't pick him.

Welsh XV and perhaps 23 look good but a few injuries and Wales will struggle.

S.Williams, Hibbard and Cuthbert are all likely to be in there as possible starters for Wales.
Phillips and Jake Ball are there or there abouts - Tupiric is also a strong bench option for Gatland. Wales werent lacking a lot more experience.

beshocked wrote:maestegmafia

You've only got one decent no 8 IMO. You're struggling at TH - hence having to tempt Francis to play for Wales.

Injury to Scott Williams or Jamie Roberts would leave you clutching at straws in the centres.

An ageing Jenkins and Paul James who got stuffed in the AP final doesn't point to a healthy selection at LH. Lots of experience but perhaps not form?

If Webb is injured what do you do? Pick the out of form Phillips?

Lose Biggar to injury and you have to play Priestland who divides Welsh fans.

Basically Wales are far more vulnerable to injuries than England.

England might have a bit of trouble if T.Youngs or Robshaw are injured but in most positions well stocked.

If Itoje was Welsh he would probably be 2nd choice blindside behind Lydiate. England on the other hand won't pick him.

Welsh XV and perhaps 23 look good but a few injuries and Wales will struggle.

Yes valid point BS.

Though I don't see our options being too bleak unless there was a mass of injuries to one or two positions and that could be said for all the teams.

Where Wales have had consistent selection other nations haven't, often as you rightly state due to the options available.

In some areas we are lucky with depth, lock, hooker, scrum half, back three in others like tighthead we are thin on the ground.

All nations have different issues. England have struggled to find the right back line since Greenwood retired. Dausitoir seems to be the only Frenchman with his name inked on to the team sheet, even the mighty all blacks have their best players srarting to look a little "long in the tooth".

thomh wrote:You're right to an extent, but I think it did tell us that he doesn't necessarily value a ball carrying 8 above all else, which is what was implied.

Anyway, we know who the 8s will be so it's a bit of a non-point.

I don't see Lancaster as much of an outside the box kind of thinker. I think he picked his squad (players in his box) and then didn't look out of the box for a potentially better (more suited may be better put) option. In a few months time we will know if this is the way to win it or not.

What's mass injuries in your eyes? One?

If you lose Faletau then what? Force Warburton,Tipuric or Lydiate to no 8?

Difference between depth and strength in depth - would you say Phillips and Hibbard played well? If you lose Webb, it leaves Wales in a bit of a pickle.

England have been able to absorb injuries far better.

England beat Wales in 2014 with one team,in 2015 there were I think 8 different players in the XV. That shows depth.

Let's say this is the 3rd/4th string.

1.Mullan
2.LCD
3.Thomas
4.Kitchener
5.Slater
6.Itoje
7.Ksevic
8.Ewers

9.Simpson
10.Myler
11.Roko
12.Eastmond
13.Daly
14.Wade
15.Foden

Doctor grey I agree. Lancaster is not taking any risks. He knows what he wants.

maestegmafia wrote:

Wales could have picked a stronger team vs Ireland, Ireland picked a stronger more experienced side after Wales showed their cards. Best, Ross, Ryan and Heaslip all quite regular first team players.

Realistically Wales only selected one first team player on the bench in Faletau. Your comments on strength and depth are a bit far fetched.

Think you've got this a bit muddled. The fact that it wasn't your first team is what makes it indicative of a lack of strength in depth. Otherwise it would just be indicative of a lack of strength at all.

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote:maestegmafia

You've only got one decent no 8 IMO. You're struggling at TH - hence having to tempt Francis to play for Wales.

Injury to Scott Williams or Jamie Roberts would leave you clutching at straws in the centres.

An ageing Jenkins and Paul James who got stuffed in the AP final doesn't point to a healthy selection at LH. Lots of experience but perhaps not form?

If Webb is injured what do you do? Pick the out of form Phillips?

Lose Biggar to injury and you have to play Priestland who divides Welsh fans.

Basically Wales are far more vulnerable to injuries than England.

England might have a bit of trouble if T.Youngs or Robshaw are injured but in most positions well stocked.

If Itoje was Welsh he would probably be 2nd choice blindside behind Lydiate. England on the other hand won't pick him.

Welsh XV and perhaps 23 look good but a few injuries and Wales will struggle.

Yes valid point BS.

Though I don't see our options being too bleak unless there was a mass of injuries to one or two positions and that could be said for all the teams.

Where Wales have had consistent selection other nations haven't, often as you rightly state due to the options available.

In some areas we are lucky with depth, lock, hooker, scrum half, back three in others like tighthead we are thin on the ground.

All nations have different issues. England have struggled to find the right back line since Greenwood retired. Dausitoir seems to be the only Frenchman with his name inked on to the team sheet, even the mighty all blacks have their best players srarting to look a little "long in the tooth".

That's because he's the only French man who plays in France....

thomh wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Wales could have picked a stronger team vs Ireland, Ireland picked a stronger more experienced side after Wales showed their cards. Best, Ross, Ryan and Heaslip all quite regular first team players.

Realistically Wales only selected one first team player on the bench in Faletau. Your comments on strength and depth are a bit far fetched.

Think you've got this a bit muddled. The fact that it wasn't your first team is what makes it indicative of a lack of strength in depth. Otherwise it would just be indicative of a lack of strength at all.

Hard to know what to take out of a match, in this case Ireland-Wales, when the coaches are discussing their teams with the other coach before hand.  
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/33780165

beshocked wrote:Doctor grey I agree. Lancaster is not taking any risks. He knows what he wants.

I think he makes his plans and commits to to it. The key is the flexibility of his plans. We all want it to work...............

No risks? Suppose its really about how much you stand to gain againstt he size of risk. Theres an element of risk attached to a few positions enforced upon him like hooker,chosen as theres nothing settled for back uplike centre spots and some where he feels the risks wont be worth it anyway 6 and full back.

thomh wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Wales could have picked a stronger team vs Ireland, Ireland picked a stronger more experienced side after Wales showed their cards. Best, Ross, Ryan and Heaslip all quite regular first team players.

Realistically Wales only selected one first team player on the bench in Faletau. Your comments on strength and depth are a bit far fetched.

Think you've got this a bit muddled. The fact that it wasn't your first team is what makes it indicative of a lack of strength in depth. Otherwise it would just be indicative of a lack of strength at all.

Despite what the coaches had pre-discussed Ireland fielded a side with larger experience. Wales had only one player from their last match starting, they selected four uncapped players stating how this game was to be used to trim the squad. Ireland selected a good number of players likely to be included in their final squad.

This showed at the set piece in particular.

From what we have all read it looks as though Lancaster will follow Schmidt in selecting a good number of players that he wants in his final squad. Wales are likely to do so in two weeks time in Dublin.

What's the thought on the side for France game then boys, good to see Morgan back, how big a gamble will Burgess be?

England team to face France
England XV: 15-Alex Goode, 14-Anthony Watson, 13-Henry Slade, 12- Sam Burgess, 11-Jonny May, 10- Owen Farrell, 9- Richard Wigglesworth; 1-Mako Vunipola, 2- Rob Webber, 3- Kieran Brookes, 4- George Kruis, 5-Geoff Parling, 6-Tom Wood, 7-Calum Clark, 8- Ben Morgan
Replacements: 16-Luke Cowan-Dickie, 17-Alex Corbisiero, 18-David Wilson, 19-Dave Attwood, 20- James Haskell, 21- Danny Care, 22-Danny Cipriani, 23-Billy Twelvetrees

Good to see Morgan back, think they are testing Slade as a utility back after he played 12 against the Baa Baa's.

Not a fan of the creative axis of the team being Wigglesworth, Farrell, Burgess and Goode though, hopefully we'll see Slade and Burgess swapping positions

Pack looks strong, would have preferred one of the young hookers to get the start but looks like Webber is getting a shot.

Other than LCD and Corbs, not particularly interested to watch any of the bench come on

Kind of makes up for me being dragged to a sodding wedding this weekend!

Do Care and Twelvetrees have points to prove if come off the bench?

I'd bet on LCD playing all the 2nd half.

Seeing Goode at 15 doesn't fill me with joy but then he may be there to act as another playmaker seeing as it looks as if we are going with the blunt instrument at 12.

I think there will be a lot of pressure on Clark in this game too

Wigglesworth is going to have to throw one hell of a miss pass to get that backline firing!

HongKongCherry wrote:Wigglesworth is going to have to throw one hell of a miss pass to get that backline firing!

2nd half Care Cips and 36 in. Could be fun if (and its a huge if) they show any form

Don't really like the backline, don't think you can pair Wigglesworth and Farrell together, far too stodgy. Care and Farrell, fine and Wigglesworth and Ford, also fine but not together.

If Tom Wood isn't being started at seven, I can only assume he isn't being seen as the automatic open side back-up to an injured Robshaw, since, call me picky, I'd like him to actually play a Test there if he is.

Such a disappointing line up:picard: All I wanted from Lancaster is to not mess up the options at hooker.

If you're not going to pick George then drop him. No point wasting his time.

Blown a perfect opportunity to pick him - Picked his fellow Sarries LH,Mako and picked his 2nd row buddy Kruis. Foolish.

It's a hodge podge mess that could go horribly wrong both in the backs and forwards.