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

The centre seems a bit of a problem position really. Joseph was great at the 6N, but Burrell has had a poor season. All the handling improvements he made the season before last seem to have regressed. Got slightly better towards the end of the season but not confident.

Confidence issues could be ironed out in a pre-season of course, but you're right. Slade is a fantastic player and it's a shame he's not got the experience at 12 yet or he could be the answer. He has everything a playmaker 12 needs.

Corbs v Brooks? Can't see going with 6 specialists - must be one of the two
Two other hookers of Webber, LCD and George.

If your looking for real versatility...Brookes has played hooker aswell....

For me, one of the interesting questions is how Lancaster will regard the players he cuts.

Lets say, just as an example, that he has Barritt, Burrell, Joseph and Slade marked down as his four centres. Potentially, Barritt and Joseph are the starters, although they have had no real game time to develop an understanding.

What if Joseph has to leave the tournament? Previously, Lancaster has always given priority to using the players he first chooses. That would give us a Barritt/Burrell or Barritt/Slade starting line-up.

I wonder whether either of those represent our genuine best second choice pairing. Barritt and Slade have currently never played together, while Barritt and Burrell have been in the same Test squad twice, but only on the pitch together once.

Against Scotland in 2014, Barritt actually replaced Burrell for five minutes. In the match prior to that, against France, Barritt was on the pitch for 15 minutes but was a replacement for Nowell, so was stuck out on the wing.

In short, if Joseph goes down, and Barritt starts, then there's a high chance our centre pairing will never have seen any action together.

If Barritt starts, then, within the squad, one way Lancaster could increase the familiarity in midfield is to pair him with his Saracens team mate Farrell. Not an option to thrill.

Lancaster could parachute in Twelvetrees, who has a nodding acquaintance with Barritt at test level, and a bit more with Burrell. I wonder whether that's why he is still involved?

There are other potential combinations, including

Surely Burrell/Joseph will be the combo he favours?

In the event of an injury, it'll depend on how long it's expected to last. Lancaster's been careful publicly (and presumably been even clearer in private) to point out that pretty much all of the players who've been dropped are only one injury away from being called up.

The fringe players in the squad will be there partly on their ability to cover if someone is injured in the short term, but there will be players out there who may well be better in any given position.

I don't think he'll have any qualms about pushing a player who's just been drafted in above someone already in the squad if they are the right fit with the remaining players. But I also don't think he'd do that if the injured player is expected to recover.

Poorfour wrote:I don't think he'll have any qualms about pushing a player who's just been drafted in above someone already in the squad if they are the right fit with the remaining players. But I also don't think he'd do that if the injured player is expected to recover.

If the injured player is expected to recover, and stays in the squad, then there can be no outside replacement.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Poorfour wrote:I don't think he'll have any qualms about pushing a player who's just been drafted in above someone already in the squad if they are the right fit with the remaining players. But I also don't think he'd do that if the injured player is expected to recover.

If the injured player is expected to recover, and stays in the squad, then there can be no outside replacement.

If they stay with the squad there can be no outside replacement. But it's the coaches' decision whether they keep an injured player in the squad or permanently drop and replace them. Woodward *could* have dropped Hill in '03, but didn't, for instance.

Poorfour wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Poorfour wrote:I don't think he'll have any qualms about pushing a player who's just been drafted in above someone already in the squad if they are the right fit with the remaining players. But I also don't think he'd do that if the injured player is expected to recover.

If the injured player is expected to recover, and stays in the squad, then there can be no outside replacement.

If they stay with the squad there can be no outside replacement. But it's the coaches' decision whether they keep an injured player in the squad or permanently drop and replace them. Woodward *could* have dropped Hill in '03, but didn't, for instance.

Sure, but if no-one leaves the squad, then the question of someone parachuting in ahead of the pecking order - which is what I was wondering about - doesn't arise.

You've set me thinking, though, about what circumstances would lead Lancaster to carry an injured player. In 2003, Woodward could afford to do so for a large part of the competition. Although some of the pool matches, and the Welsh quarter final, ended up being a lot trickier than we might have hoped, they were all opponents we had come to expect to beat comfortably. Woodward would have been confident of making the semi final, and so he was able to give Hill a month to recover, knowing we'd still be in the tournament.

This year, we don't get any respite until the fourth pool game against Uruguay. Conceivably, Lancaster might keep a key individual in camp if he was unfit for Fiji but likely to be ready for Wales a week later, but an early two week injury would be hard to hide.

I don't think that Lancaster will keep any injured player in the team/squad to be honest.

I do think he well wan't to replace that injured players asap.

Unfortunately because of the small squad size, there is a "Bloodgate" strategy option.

For example, your squad only has two dedicated tight-head props, the third TH is in fact a loose head who can just about cope, but is not ideal.

Your very best TH is injured just before a key game but could be OK in two weeks.  You do not want to have a LH on the bench for a key game covering the TH position.

Therefore you replace your number 1 TH with your number 3 TH who was not originally in the squad.  You win your key game and progress through to the next stage.  Your final pool game is one-sided but you have already beaten one of your key opponents, and will go through.

Therefore when your next match is played, your number 1 TH is fit. You would like very much for him to be back in the squad.

Mysteriously, one of the (lesser known) players in squad is in unfit and you can bring back your number 1 TH.

All above board???

Unfortunately because of the small squad size, there is a "Bloodgate" strategy option.

For example, your squad only has two dedicated tight-head props, the third TH is in fact a loose head who can just about cope, but is not ideal.

Your very best TH is injured just before a key game but could be OK in two weeks.  You do not want to have a LH on the bench for a key game covering the TH position.

Therefore you replace your number 1 TH with your number 3 TH who was not originally in the squad.  You win your key game and progress through to the next stage.  Your final pool game is one-sided but you have already beaten one of your key opponents, and will go through.

Therefore when your next match is played, your number 1 TH is fit. You would like very much for him to be back in the squad.

Mysteriously, one of the (lesser known) players in squad is in unfit and you can bring back your number 1 TH.

All above board???

Just for the record Burgess isn't a Centre!

cb, it's not above board, but it's not possible either. If a player leaves the squad because of injury, they aren't allowed back. The tournament rules are very clear on it.

majesticimperialman wrote:I don't think that Lancaster will keep any injured player in the team/squad to be honest.

Robshaw would be a tricky conundrum, given how central he has been to planning. Ford and Farrell would also require hard thinking, since it wouldn't be safe to go into a crunch match with one of Twelvetrees/Goode/Slade as back up goal kicker. You would really need to draft in Cips if one of those two did go down but it would be a big decision to make.

Scottrf wrote:Surely Burrell/Joseph will be the combo he favours?

Ah I think its safe to say it will be Barritt and Joseph

Burrell is an issue defensively, Barritt gives us a defensive rock in the backline.

I haven't been impressed with Burrell since he played so well for England at 13.

I have a feeling that's where Burgess is being earmarked for...13 like Manu.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ah I think its safe to say it will be Barritt and Joseph

Fair enough, hope so.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I haven't been impressed with Burrell since he played so well for England at 13.

I have a feeling that's where Burgess is being earmarked for...13 like Manu.

If that was the case wouldn't SL have started Burgess and Slade the other way round this weekend?

Since Lancaster has said he doesn't see Burgess as a flanker, that really means he won't be much use on the bench, as he only covers one position. If one of the back three players were to go down, then Joseph would almost certainly have to move to the wing, which doesn't sound like the best use of his talent if Barritt and Burgess are the midfield pair inside him.

SirBurger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I haven't been impressed with Burrell since he played so well for England at 13.

I have a feeling that's where Burgess is being earmarked for...13 like Manu.

If that was the case wouldn't SL have started Burgess and Slade the other way round this weekend?

In attack, I think Lancaster's more interested in combinations than strict positioning - in the Barbarians game I seem to remember Slade coming in at first receiver several times, or lining up on the other side to Cipriani to give a two-sided attack. I'd expect them to play a fairly fluid arrangement - don't forget that a lot of the attack coaching will have come from Mike Catt, who would regularly swap positions when playing with Greenwood (and may well see in Slade something of a kindred spirit).

In defence, 13 is a more difficult channel to defend than 12 in England's drift defence, so it's likely that Burgess would line up at 12 given his relative lack of speed and any lingering positional flaws.

Per the ‘experts’ 26 of the 31 squad picks seem certain with the following fighting it out for the final 5 places:

Corbisiero v Brookes for the 5th prop position.
Henry Slade v Billy Twelvetrees v Sam Burgess for the 4th centre position.
Morgan v Easter v Clark for the 5th back row spot
Attwood v Kruis v Easter for 4th second row spot
Cowan Dickie v George for the 3rd hooker spot

I think Morgan will need to go reasonably well on Saturday after his injury layoff, but he seems to be a Lancaster favourite so can expect a second chance in the next warm up game so long as he is not clearly unfit.

With all of England’s world cup pool games likely to be important – if only for points difference purposes if Australia, Wales and England finish on 3 wins each and the 'need' to finish top of the group – there isn’t going to be the opportunity to rest players (unless we beat Wales and Australia, so that the last game against Uruguay is not important). So my guesses would be:
-
Brookes, Twelvetrees, Morgan, Easter and Cowan Dickie.

I reckon we'd be silly to not take 6 props, 3 for each side. I don't fancy Corbs as a tighthead, and would prefer to be able to give the first choices a clear rest against Uruguay, we know we can outscrum the Oz and Wales packs so let's make the most of that advantage by making sure the players can go full tilt knowing they are getting a rest against Uruguay in the last game

BamBam wrote:I reckon we'd be silly to not take 6 props, 3 for each side. I don't fancy Corbs as a tighthead, and would prefer to be able to give the first choices a clear rest against Uruguay, we know we can outscrum the Oz and Wales packs so let's make the most of that advantage by making sure the players can go full tilt knowing they are getting a rest against Uruguay in the last game

If you're going to do that, who would you *not* take instead? It would be silly to take 6 props and only 2 hookers, so one slot goes to them, and we are likely to need an additional centre, so one for them.

That leaves one slot to cover lock and back row. Who would you pick?

Didn't Wilson used to shift to loosehead back when there was only one prop substitute?

Poorfour wrote:

BamBam wrote:I reckon we'd be silly to not take 6 props, 3 for each side. I don't fancy Corbs as a tighthead, and would prefer to be able to give the first choices a clear rest against Uruguay, we know we can outscrum the Oz and Wales packs so let's make the most of that advantage by making sure the players can go full tilt knowing they are getting a rest against Uruguay in the last game

If you're going to do that, who would you *not* take instead? It would be silly to take 6 props and only 2 hookers, so one slot goes to them, and we are likely to need an additional centre, so one for them.

That leaves one slot to cover lock and back row. Who would you pick?

Hmm, good question. I have no idea who I would drop in that scenario .. for me it would have been to take Slater/Itoje as a lock/6, but SL hasn't given himself that option. Maybe we'll have to go with 5 props then, I've just typed out a squad below and can't think how best to cover those two positions with 1 player!

Forwards - 17

Prop - Marler, Mako, Corbs, Cole, Wilson, Brookes
Hooker - Youngs, George, Webber/LCD on form
Lock - Lawes, Launchbury, Parling, ?
Back row - Robshaw, Wood, Vunipola, Morgan, ?

Backs - 14

SH - Youngs, Care, Wiggles
FH - Ford, Farrell, Slade (covering centre)
Centre - Joseph, Barritt, Burrell
Back 3 - Brown, Watson, Nowell, May, Goode (not my choice)

Easy solution, drop Corbs, he hasn't played well enough for too long.

last world cup england only took 30 players and just 4 props. the squads are now 31 players an additional place for extra prop must be because you can have an extra prop on the bench.

Surely we only need 5 props.

i would question the need for 2 specialist fullbacks considering all 3 wings have and can play there.

If goode didnt make the squad there maybe an extra place say in the centres.. for bit of a gamble perhaps.

Props. My thinking is his 5th prop must be a TH. Why? Well other then Uruguay I wouldn't pick anything other than two specialists on the bench (and starting obviously) which means if we have an injury I would need to draft in a permanent replacement straight away and lose someone from the squad even if they might be back in a few games time. DC is the one player I would hang on to even with an injury, At loosehead I could live with losing Marler for Corbs for example. So KB is in, Corbs is out.

If all props were fit and in form, then Corbs would be the clear winner, but he has failed to shine since the Lions. Nevertheless, his scrummaging technique is better than Marler and Vunipola. I still have question marks over Brookes scrummaging ability, but his ball carrying has vastly improved. As we can replace injured players I'd be more inclined to take a punt and go with Corbs for the 31 and stick him on the bench for the Australia game to put the wind up them!

HongKongCherry wrote:If all props were fit and in form, then Corbs would be the clear winner, but he has failed to shine since the Lions. Nevertheless, his scrummaging technique is better than Marler and Vunipola.  I still have question marks over Brookes scrummaging ability, but his ball carrying has vastly improved.  As we can replace injured players I'd be more inclined to take a punt and go with Corbs for the 31 and stick him on the bench for the Australia game to put the wind up them!

I'm not so sure about that any more. It definitely was better than either of them back in 2013, but since then we've had the change of engagement rules and I don't think he's been conspicuously better than either of them since his return from injury.

Marler in particular has gained a reputation as being one of the top looseheads - the new engagement has made it harder to cheat against him and referees have begun to acknowledge that his technique is very clean, which tends to earn him the benefit of the doubt. He's less destructive than some looseheads, but Rowntree has generally preferred his packs to shove straight and drive through the opposition anyway. Mako is also much improved, and probably the best of the three in the loose.

Conversely, I think Corbs was very adept at twisting his oppo out of shape, but with fewer options in the bind he may be struggling to gain that edge these days.

Agree there, Corbs has certainly lost a lot of his dominance with the new rules. I can't recall the last time he looked on top tbh, Waller has often outplayed him for Saints.

Australian Scrum has improved greatly recently - I dont think that is somewhere that we can expect to get an easy ride!
Even if England do gain the upper hand - Referees dont always penalise as they should do when there is a dominant pack. A la 2003.

propdavid_london wrote:Australian Scrum has improved greatly recently - I dont think that is somewhere that we can expect to get an easy ride!
Even if England do gain the upper hand - Referees dont always penalise as they should do when there is a dominant pack.  A la 2003.

2003 is the perfect example. The dominant pack gets punished, almost to the cost of the championship.

The more I look at the team I think - you know what - it's not as bad as I first thought though Webber and Clark's performances will probably be the most crucial in the pack.

In the backs - Wigglesworth and Farrell will give some control which should help the inexperienced centres. May and Watson are pacy and Goode as an additional playmaker should give some more variety in attack if utilised properly.

Hope Road Runner does as well as Lancaster said he did in training.

doctor_grey wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:Australian Scrum has improved greatly recently - I dont think that is somewhere that we can expect to get an easy ride!
Even if England do gain the upper hand - Referees dont always penalise as they should do when there is a dominant pack.  A la 2003.

2003 is the perfect example.  The dominant pack gets punished, almost to the cost of the championship.  

Most referees. But our referees are French. We have Garces for Wales and Poite for Australia, and both of them a) know what scrummaging is about and b) are consistently good at rewarding the dominant scrum, usually by letting it play but sometimes by penalties. I initially thought I'd prefer them the other way round, but Australia's new found competence makes me glad we have Poite to oversee it. He's very rarely conned.

A story from Martin Johnson on 2003: apparently Andre Watson took the front row and Johnson to one side before the final and told them he would only blow up "if I could put my house on it." Sometime around the 60 minute mark, Steve Thompson got fed up of the stream of penalties going the wrong way and declated, just quietly enough to be deniable, "Andre, mate. This house of yours must be f****** S***!"

A lot of people would disagree with you that Poite referees scrums well.

e.g. a few days ago http://www.rugby365.com/countries/south-africa/67704-boks-seeking-clarity-on-scrum-calls

Scottrf wrote:A lot of people would disagree with you that Poite referees scrums well.

e.g. a few days ago http://www.rugby365.com/countries/south-africa/67704-boks-seeking-clarity-on-scrum-calls

To borrow a phrase from Mandy Rice Davies, well he would say that, wouldn't he?

Pieter de Villiers wrote:"He played against a very good prop Ayerza who is very experienced and plays in the northern hemisphere where scrum manipulation is a fine and dark art and he is very good with that, but if he is always on the right side of the law is debatable and we will take that further, we believe that sometimes he does scrum in and sometimes loses his bind," he said.

De Villiers pointed out that it was the first time Koch had come up against a prop who plays in the northern hemisphere, and added that the Stormers tighthead is very keen to show that he has what it takes to compete at Test level.

"It was the first time that Vincent played against a northern hemisphere prop, he is used to southern hemisphere rugby and the scrummaging is a bit different."

From an entirely partisan perspective, I see nothing in that quote that would make me want any other ref for the England v Australia game.

Being less partisan, it is an issue that not only do the NH and SH referee the scrum differently, but even different referees within a given league referee it differently. Personally, I think the French style of reffing both the scrum and the breakdown is more in tune with how I like to see the game played (as a fan, and as a [junior] ref), and Poite in particular is very consistent in what he looks for.

The things I particularly like are:
1) He views them as a sequence of events where the players have certain obligations, and he penalises the first infringement in the sequence
2) He plays advantage, and tolerates some scrappiness as long as the non-infringing side isn't being materially impeded
3) He's technically sound - I can only think of a couple of out-and-out errors, against a larger number of fine judgments that on replay have been spot on.
4) He's not swayed by the crowd.

I love that quote:

" It was the first time that Vincent played against a northern hemisphere prop, he is used to southern hemisphere rugby and the scrummaging is a bit different."

The scrummaging is a bit different as in we actually scrummage. It's a whole different beast being a decent prop in the S15 and then trying yourself against the best of Arg, France & England.

It's not just one man criticising him though:

http://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/36085-Romain-Poite-s-credibility/page2

As for penalising the first infringement, people commenting on the games disagree. In that the first infringement was not driving straight and he penalises the next infringement.

Scottrf wrote:It's not just one man criticising him though:

http://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/36085-Romain-Poite-s-credibility/page2

As for penalising the first infringement, people commenting on the games disagree. In that the first infringement was not driving straight and he penalises the next infringement.

Didn't see the game, so can't comment on the specific incident. But skimming the thread my observations would be:
1) Most of the complaints seem to be coming from SA fans upset at the loss, so have to be taken with a pinch of salt
2) The posts displaying more knowledge of the laws are pretty consistent that he has made decisions that - at the very least - have a sound technical justification
3) In my experience, most fans and quite a lot of commentators don't really understand how scrums go wrong. There are a whole load of reasons why what looks like not driving straight might not be penalised - one example would be if the opposing prop had bound in an illegal way that led to the angle
4) The 12-man RWC refereeing panel includes 3 French refs, one more than from any other single nation and all of whom in my experience ref in a similar way. Whether you like it or not, they must be doing something right in the eyes of the people who maintain the Laws.

Anyway, what a bunch of fans and an aggrieved coach think doesn't really have any bearing on my original point: Poite refereeing the England - Australia game is likely to suit England's scrum.

SA can have little compliant imo, their scrum got ruined