So when will Lancaster resign.....I guess after the wc once the rfu have paid up

First topic message reminder :

I'll fatten this out later, but I think this is now worthy of serious speculation given the wc is less than a month away and the impending realisation that we will not progress from the group stage.

Look we all know that England have struggled with the centre positions for over a decade. Lancaster is blasted for not solving this problem but of all the coaches in that time has been worst hit by injuries.

Johnno is often ridiculed for some of his selections too.

But how about Brian Ashton? A very highly regarded backs coach, in his second spell with England as Attack coach and Head coach England played 35 matches and 10 different players started in the centre and a further 7 played there off the bench.
Jamie noon was our highest capped centre in that period (19) but played in only just over half the games.



Ashtons Centres

DaveM wrote:

beshocked wrote:

As for openside - Lancaster only just tried Clark in these warm ups despite him being in his squad for a long time. Likely to be jettisoned. I've not rated him particularly anyway.

No other openside has been given a fair go - the decision to leave out Ksevic seems to be questionable. The reliance on Robshaw has put Lancaster in a difficult position.

Will be in the same position he was when he first announced his 50 squad - reliance on Wood,Haskell and Robshaw - no progress was made for the likes of Ksevic,Itoje and Ewers because Lancaster didn't try them. Consequently they will stay unproven.

Hartley's headbutt has had benefits though because it meant George was picked in the 50 and gave him a chance in the warm ups. George could make the 31.

There wouldn't be calls for Hartley and S.Armitage if the hooker and openside flanker positions had a healthy stock or had been managed better by Lancaster.

The biggest criticisms of Lancaster revolve around the lineout and breakdown - not exactly small areas.

Lineout and breakdown are surely primarily Rowntree's responsibility? The forwards were awful for almost all the game in France, and for 30 minutes of the game at Twickenham, but Rowntree seems immune from criticism.

Re the flankers: English rugby is producing loads of players, but has a problem producing classical 7s. I thought Gus Jones at Wasps looked an interesting prospect, but how much rugby he'll get there now I don't know. Other than that Fraser's career has been wrecked by injury, Wallace has been pushed away from 7 by Robshaw, Kvesic hasn't done enough, and then where do you go? At the moment I'm pinning my hopes on Clifford specialising there, but he'll have the same problem Wallace had getting regular game time. Otherwise it is Clark who would come in if Robshaw isn't available. Tom Rees was a massive loss to English rugby.

Interesting how SCW was effectively suggesting the back-row is too big as a unit. That's different from the usual call here for more brawn.

Aside from being in impressive form for Gloucester all season and being a leader? He hasn't had a sniff of a chance at international level to know if he can do it or not??

Rugby Fan wrote:

Gwlad wrote:...Why does anyone think Stewie thinks familiarity between the two key attacking backs is important?..

No-one who levels this charge against Lancaster ever seems to come up with any ideas about how a stable centre partnership could have been better established. It should be quite simple: just name two or three players who ought to have been given a run together, who should now be going to the Cup.

...and who have been simultaneously fit and in form for more than one England series in a row.

One thing that has changed for the better is the quality of the talent available. The current crop - particularly Joseph and (when fit and not banned) Tuilagi - are better than Abbot, Noon, Flutey, Hape, the superannuated Tindall of 2011, and the crop emerging from the U20s are significantly better than that.

The challenge is keeping them fit, and in that I agree with kingelderfield that it would be best if the next EPS agreement gives the RFU more control over the EPS players, even at the cost of a significant increase in dosh to the clubs.

Poorfour wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Gwlad wrote:...Why does anyone think Stewie thinks familiarity between the two key attacking backs is important?..

No-one who levels this charge against Lancaster ever seems to come up with any ideas about how a stable centre partnership could have been better established. It should be quite simple: just name two or three players who ought to have been given a run together, who should now be going to the Cup.

...and who have been simultaneously fit and in form for more than one England series in a row.

One thing that has changed for the better is the quality of the talent available. The current crop - particularly Joseph and (when fit and not banned) Tuilagi - are better than Abbot, Noon, Flutey, Hape, the superannuated Tindall of 2011, and the crop emerging from the U20s are significantly better than that.

The challenge is keeping them fit, and in that I agree with kingelderfield that it would be best if the next EPS agreement gives the RFU more control over the EPS players, even at the cost of a significant increase in dosh to the clubs.

Agree most especially with the part in bold. More money needs to go to the clubs because more control by the RFU must include fewer matches. The additional money will be needed for expanded club rosters.

LondonTiger wrote: Lancaster ...... in that time has been worst hit by injuries.

Whilst I agree with the rest Im not sure thats strictly true. The injury/discpline issues have been as ever present as the chopping and changing.

Gooseberry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote: Lancaster ...... in that time has been worst hit by injuries.

Whilst I agree with the rest Im not sure thats strictly true. The injury/discpline issues have been as ever present as the chopping and changing.

In certain positions he definitely has...cant really disagree, but in other positions he's flogged players like Robshaw. He's captain and the workhorse 7, but he has had opportunities to rest him for a game or even just a half. That keeps him fresh...but also allows you to see how his back up / competition go...players like the bang inform Kvesic this season for example.

Sorry if im like a but I think its an important point.

I was talking purely about the centres.

With hindsight in the 6 nations we could have seen something different in the back row as Billy V played all 400 minutes and Haskell was available to cover No8 if Billy was injured. fo the first 3 matches we had Easter and Croft on the bench, instead we could have had one or the other (probably Easter as he covers more positions) and then have Clark or Kvesic in the squad.

When Wood was fit and available (after the Ireland game) we had two home matches and no GS on the line. Robshaw could have had a rest and Clark or Kvesic started.

But hindsights is a wonderful thing, and if he had done that and (as happened anyway) we did not secure the title posters on here would have blasted him.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote: Lancaster ...... in that time has been worst hit by injuries.

Whilst I agree with the rest Im not sure thats strictly true. The injury/discpline issues have been as ever present as the chopping and changing.

In certain positions he definitely has...cant really disagree, but in other positions he's flogged players like Robshaw. He's captain and the workhorse 7, but he has had opportunities to rest him for a game or even just a half. That keeps him fresh...but also allows you to see how his back up / competition go...players like the bang inform Kvesic this season for example.

Sorry if im like a but I think its an important point.

He did rest Robshaw. He gave him the whole summer off while the Lions / Argentina tours were going on. And he played Kvesic on that tour, and included him in training squads subsequently. If Lancaster and Rowntree thought Kvesic was a better alternative than Haskell or even Clark, they'd have picked him. It's not as if he hasn't been looked at or had the chance. And he's been willing to drop Wood for Haskell, so it's not as if they aren't picking the players they think are in form - it's just that you don't like the players they have and haven't picked.

Robshaw hasn't needed a rest because his form and fitness haven't shown any signs of deteriorating. He was clearly worn out the season before last and needed a break after the 6N (which Quins gave him), but has been very consistent since.

He also had a break from AP games before the 6N resting a stinger injury. Lancaster's been a bit lucky in that respect - some of the players who were in danger of burnout have had injuries that kept them out of club games for a while but has seen them back for the RWC.

Geordiefalcon even Billy Vunipola got ran into the ground in the 6 nations. Playing every game for 80 minutes.

When the clubs and country want their pound of flesh it's the player that suffers in the tug of war battle.

You've got two extremes - players like Billy and Robshaw flogged, the likes of Morgan,Launchbury who have barely played. Barritt hasn't played in any of the warm up games yet.

But the lions tour was 2 years ago.
Kvesic wasn't in form then...but has been in great form over the last season and a half. And mentioning Clark as a better alternative...yet he only got his first game in the WC warm up after being part of the squad for the last 2 years or something crazy. Why have a player...and not play him??? I just don't understand that.

He has persisted with Haskell replacing Wood. Everyone is infuriated by Haskells inconsistency at international level.

so it's not as if they aren't picking the players they think are in form - it's just that you don't like the players they have and haven't picked.

To a degree yes your right...I don't like the balance of the pack. Ive said it all along.
But that's not the only reason.

For example....Haskell would be my first choice at 6 if he showed his form consistently. On form he is the physical type of 6 I want on my England flank. But he just doesn't show consistency...and after so many years its time to look elsewhere. Why has Lancaster not seen that.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon even Billy Vunipola got ran into the ground in the 6 nations. Playing every game for 80 minutes.

When the clubs and country want their pound of flesh it's the player that suffers in the tug of war battle.

You've got two extremes - players like Billy and Robshaw flogged, the likes of Morgan,Launchbury who have barely played. Barritt hasn't played in any of the warm up games yet.

Breaking news.... anti-exploitation officers investigate claim that professional rugby players are made to play one 80 minute game of rugby a week....

Seriously, the 'poor overworked player' argument is something I hear quite a lot in football too. Although I accept that the demands of the modern game have increased, I tend to think it rather absurd that its suggested that professional players (in any sport for that matter) are doing too much of that particular sport. Lets face it, if any of us on here were anywhere near good enough to play rugby professionally, we'd leap at the chance and you'd better be sure we' play as much as we could too.

On the other hand, I do disagree with modern schedules that shoehorn anachronistic antiques like the B&I Lions tours into already crowded club and international schedules, when (and I do concede) players should be resting. Gone are the amateur days. Whether we like it or not, players are commodities, and good ones are extremely valuable. They should be rested properly - but of course, this will conflict with their quite natural enthusiasm to play (see my last sentence of previous paragraph).

Jimpy..
I have no problem with Robshaw, Vunipola playing ALL of the 6n etc. My problems come when we are coming in to a WC and are still wondering who can do the job if Robshaw gets injured.

I just think there are times when others should have been trialled. But im boring myself going on about it now, so I must be boring all of you guys...ill leave it there.

Poorfour wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote: Lancaster ...... in that time has been worst hit by injuries.

Whilst I agree with the rest Im not sure thats strictly true. The injury/discpline issues have been as ever present as the chopping and changing.

In certain positions he definitely has...cant really disagree, but in other positions he's flogged players like Robshaw. He's captain and the workhorse 7, but he has had opportunities to rest him for a game or even just a half. That keeps him fresh...but also allows you to see how his back up / competition go...players like the bang inform Kvesic this season for example.

Sorry if im like a but I think its an important point.

He did rest Robshaw. He gave him the whole summer off while the Lions / Argentina tours were going on. And he played Kvesic on that tour, and included him in training squads subsequently. If Lancaster and Rowntree thought Kvesic was a better alternative than Haskell or even Clark, they'd have picked him. It's not as if he hasn't been looked at or had the chance. And he's been willing to drop Wood for Haskell, so it's not as if they aren't picking the players they think are in form - it's just that you don't like the players they have and haven't picked.

Robshaw hasn't needed a rest because his form and fitness haven't shown any signs of deteriorating. He was clearly worn out the season before last and needed a break after the 6N (which Quins gave him), but has been very consistent since.

He also had a break from AP games before the 6N resting a stinger injury. Lancaster's been a bit lucky in that respect - some of the players who were in danger of burnout have had injuries that kept them out of club games for a while but has seen them back for the RWC.

Didn't Wood pick up an injury and Haskell came in? Not really dropped I don't think.

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon even Billy Vunipola got ran into the ground in the 6 nations. Playing every game for 80 minutes.

When the clubs and country want their pound of flesh it's the player that suffers in the tug of war battle.

You've got two extremes - players like Billy and Robshaw flogged, the likes of Morgan,Launchbury who have barely played. Barritt hasn't played in any of the warm up games yet.

Breaking news.... anti-exploitation officers investigate claim that professional rugby players are made to play one 80 minute game of rugby a week....

Seriously, the 'poor overworked player' argument is something I hear quite a lot in football too. Although I accept that the demands of the modern game have increased, I tend to think it rather absurd that its suggested that professional players (in any sport for that matter) are doing too much of that particular sport. Lets face it, if any of us on here were anywhere near good enough to play rugby professionally, we'd leap at the chance and you'd better be sure we' play as much as we could too.

On the other hand, I do disagree with modern schedules that shoehorn anachronistic antiques like the B&I Lions tours into already crowded club and international schedules, when (and I do concede) players should be resting. Gone are the amateur days. Whether we like it or not, players are commodities, and good ones are extremely valuable. They should be rested properly - but of course, this will conflict with their quite natural enthusiasm to play (see my last sentence of previous paragraph).

Jimpy it's about getting the best performance from players. We want England to be at their peak during the world cup.

Do you think someone who is unfit/tired/carrying a knock is going to be firing at all cylinders?

It's not just the 80 minutes of rugby a week though is it? It's the training and analysis too - plus having to do other stuff during the week like meeting joe public. There's a lot of commitments.

There's always the risk of injury too.

Too absurd? A balanced schedule is important.

It's natural for a player to want to play as much as they can but keeping fresh and fit is important too.

Player burnout is not a new thing.

Lets be honest about it the rfu are never going to cough up and so the malaise will continue for another decade at least.

An exceptional coach will be able to create a team that will always provide parity or success, however how many coaches will want to work with the rfu, certainly not the very good ones who will remain at the best clubs.

57 old farts, don't you love em'.

Who would fancy Dean Richards for england?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Jimpy..
I have no problem with Robshaw, Vunipola playing ALL of the 6n etc. My problems come when we are coming in to a WC and are still wondering who can do the job if Robshaw gets injured.

I just think there are times when others should have been trialled. But im boring myself going on about it now, so I must be boring all of you guys...ill leave it there.

Haskell will do the job if Robshaw gets injured. As pointed out above, Kvesic was looked at in the camp and has played under SL. He did play well for Gloucester, but obviously didn't do enough to convince the coaches he was a better bet. Clark got a bit closer.

After the WC there will be an opportunity to look again at the balance between 4, 5 and 6, but I don't see an obviously better flanker than the 3 picked.

DaveM wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Jimpy..
I have no problem with Robshaw, Vunipola playing ALL of the 6n etc. My problems come when we are coming in to a WC and are still wondering who can do the job if Robshaw gets injured.

I just think there are times when others should have been trialled. But im boring myself going on about it now, so I must be boring all of you guys...ill leave it there.

Haskell will do the job if Robshaw gets injured. As pointed out above, Kvesic was looked at in the camp and has played under SL. He did play well for Gloucester, but obviously didn't do enough to convince the coaches he was a better bet. Clark got a bit closer.

After the WC there will be an opportunity to look again at the balance between 4, 5 and 6, but I don't see an obviously better flanker than the 3 picked.

He played against a scratch Argentina side two times on the tour two years ago...and in the midweek side v the crusaders in the summer tour 2014...and Lancaster named him MOM for that game.

So if Lancaster is judging players on games from two years ago and a few training sessions...then I'm genuinely concerned.

kingelderfield wrote:Who would fancy Dean Richards for england?

No he's busy turning us into a superpower

kingelderfield wrote:Who would fancy Dean Richards for england?

It would be entertaining, to say the least.

I imagine his pack would be more along the lines of Marler, Hartley, Wilson, Attwood, Lawes, Vunipola, Robshaw, Easter

GeordieFalcon wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:Who would fancy Dean Richards for england?

No he's busy turning us into a superpower

After the monotonous boredom of Lancaster, I want Cockerill.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

He played against a scratch Argentina side two times on the tour two years ago...and in the midweek side v the crusaders in the summer tour 2014...and Lancaster named him MOM for that game.

So if Lancaster is judging players on games from two years ago and a few training sessions...then I'm genuinely concerned.

Well Lancaster and Rowntree (remember him?) are judging him on those games, or having watched him for Gloucester and from having him in camp. If you are arguing they only have the right to judge him having started him, say, in a game in 2015 then I'd suggest that means they have no right to judge most English qualified players.

Lnacaster is kind of screwed, anything less than a semi final and it will be all about Burgess being a crazy selection (and he is) and he will be back to teaching mini rugby before you can say 'I meant to pick luther honest"

Thinking in a broader sense, what will be the impact on english rugby of a wc failure (not reaching the 1/4 final stage)?

We're football obsessed as a nation and rugby the posh boys sport has its hard won niche, a crap and embarrassing early exit will certainly push away the casual fan and effect rfu shirt sales etc.

Possibly true Gwlad, but he's made that rod for his own back by stating that the last 4 years have been largely about building for the world cup.

DaveM wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

He played against a scratch Argentina side two times on the tour two years ago...and in the midweek side v the crusaders in the summer tour 2014...and Lancaster named him MOM for that game.

So if Lancaster is judging players on games from two years ago and a few training sessions...then I'm genuinely concerned.

Well Lancaster and Rowntree (remember him?) are judging him on those games, or having watched him for Gloucester and from having him in camp. If you are arguing they only have the right to judge him having started him, say, in a game in 2015 then I'd suggest that means they have no right to judge most English qualified players.

Im saying how can you judge a player on a game 2 years ago!! Its not rocket science. He was 20 then, 22 now and has been hugely improved this season.

Im also saying why have players in the squad...ala Calum Clark yet not try him in any games? People say he's above Kvesic...yet how do we know...he only played his first game in the WC warm up game despite being in the squad for a long time.
That is incredible!

Lancaster has done many things right...im not disputing that, I just think he still has areas of his management to work on.

Gwlad wrote:Lnacaster is kind of screwed, anything less than a semi final and it will be all about Burgess being a crazy selection (and he is) and he will be back to teaching mini rugby before you can say 'I meant to pick luther honest"

Its funny....Im not fussed about the Burgess selection. Its some of the others that puzzle me. And players who were never even in the original squad....

If you sit back and look at the selection I think most reasonable people can see the reasons for all the players. In a lot of cases disagreements come from just preferring another player ourselves.

Much of it is 7.5 you are correct.

That said Burgess is a flanker

ha ha...yes he is.

Whats your thoughts on Rowntrees comments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11718000/England-hope-to-play-quick-World-Cup-game-with-trim-conditioned-pack-says-Rowntree.html

Can't read it at the mo but if the titles anything to go by it makes sense. Just need to ensure that we do get fast ball. The forwards are good enough handling wise to play an open and fast game, it goes without saying you still need a strong set piece (or a reliable one on your own ball at least).

GeordieFalcon wrote:Whats your thoughts on Rowntrees comments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11718000/England-hope-to-play-quick-World-Cup-game-with-trim-conditioned-pack-says-Rowntree.html

They make sense - but I'd be more comfortable if the forwards had performed in Paris. Hopefully it is, as Woodward said, that they are aiming to peak for 18 September, but we really need to see a step up against Ireland.

If they can win their own ball in the scrum and lineout, not concede too many penalties and keep the pace up for 80 minutes, to gain an edge in the last quarter, then Rowntree's theory will start to look like it holds water. Another 80 minutes of loose scrums and wobbly lineouts and I'll start to worry.

Yeah im with you Poorfour.

I relunctantly respect rugby evolution and fitter, faster, more mobile....but theres that old fashioned rugby player inside me that still yearns for the Gareth Chilcotts...the Norm Hadleys, Dean Richards...you know the big bear like players...caked in mud mauling it up the pitch.

We'll see whether its worked in the next few weeks.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yeah im with you Poorfour.

I relunctantly respect rugby evolution and fitter, faster, more mobile....but theres that old fashioned rugby player inside me that still yearns for the Gareth Chilcotts...the Norm Hadleys, Dean Richards...you know the big bear like players...caked in mud mauling it up the pitch.

We'll see whether its worked in the next few weeks.

Easter may be the last of them. While I wouldn't wish injury on anyone, I am hoping he does get a chance to give us one last swan song for the old school!

maestegmafia wrote:Fiji's front five looked better than the England first choice one that got demolished in Paris last week mate.

Hi Maesteg, it's great to see you still about
Fiji might of looked half decent in the pacific nations cup where most teams were competing without most of their European based players but Fiji haven't really done much for years. They did give Wales a bit of a scare last year, so if Wales are half-assed against them Wales may have problems, but I can't see it to be honest.

England won't struggle at all though, I wouldnt be suprised if they post a 30-60 point margin on Fiji.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Im saying how can you judge a player on a game 2 years ago!! Its not rocket science. He was 20 then, 22 now and has been hugely improved this season.

Im also saying why have players in the squad...ala Calum Clark yet not try him in any games? People say he's above Kvesic...yet how do we know...he only played his first game in the WC warm up game despite being in the squad for a long time.
That is incredible!

Lancaster has done many things right...im not disputing that, I just think he still has areas of his management to work on.

But SL's captain plays in Kvesic's position. I don't see when he could have played him this year - you don't not select you captain for the 6 Nations whilst you are still in contention. Even in the AIs SL was trying to build a backrow unit able to win the WC. SL and the coaches obviously rate Clark more highly than Kvesic so they gave him the one run out available. It's Clark who will be called up if Robshaw is injured. Is anyone seriously suggesting the flankers for this WC should be anyone other than Robshaw, Wood and Haskell?

Gwlad wrote:Lnacaster is kind of screwed, anything less than a semi final and it will be all about Burgess being a crazy selection (and he is) and he will be back to teaching mini rugby before you can say 'I meant to pick luther honest"

I think you are rather overstating how good a player Burrell is. He's decent, no more, and I cannot believe there are really any English rugby fans out there who believe that Burrell is the difference between England reaching a semi-final or not. In fact if Burrell has been picked he would have been 4th choice and would probably barely have featured.

Big wrote:Possibly true Gwlad, but he's made that rod for his own back by stating that the last 4 years have been largely about building for the world cup.

Of course he's said that, it's obviously true. A home WC is a once in a generation event, and his instructions from the RFU would have been to focus on that. What would you have had him say instead?

Burrell in that Ireland match of the 6N wasn't at his best for England, he's done nothing truly wrong in the manner of Twelvetrees but he's done very little spectacularly right in the manner of Twelvetrees either. He carries well without being destructive, he passes well without having great range and he tackles well most of the time with the odd lapse.

Burgess isn't exactly the messiah but he has the potential to do extremely well and he seems to work well in a system with Farrell/Slade/Goode which gives us a range of different options if Ford/Joseph/Brown goes off the wall.

I will nonetheless re-iterate my views of a season or so ago and say this RWC is at least a year too early for the development of this England side. Lancs made a rod for his own back by banging on about it a few years ago, it's about the long term vision and that takes more than 3 years!

DaveM wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Lnacaster is kind of screwed, anything less than a semi final and it will be all about Burgess being a crazy selection (and he is) and he will be back to teaching mini rugby before you can say 'I meant to pick luther honest"

I think you are rather overstating how good a player Burrell is. He's decent, no more, and I cannot believe there are really any English rugby fans out there who believe that Burrell is the difference between England reaching a semi-final or not. In fact if Burrell has been picked he would have been 4th choice and would probably barely have featured.

I think you're missing the point Dave. When the tam was announced it was ALL about burgess making the cut, not burgess over Burrell. My point is if England fail to make it then this selection will be held up as the crazy litmus test indicative that Stewie has lost the plot and is unfit for purpose giving the nay sayers the basis for an argument to dismiss Stewie, if they do well it will be the genius cause celebre.

Gwlad wrote:

DaveM wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Lnacaster is kind of screwed, anything less than a semi final and it will be all about Burgess being a crazy selection (and he is) and he will be back to teaching mini rugby before you can say 'I meant to pick luther honest"

I think you are rather overstating how good a player Burrell is. He's decent, no more, and I cannot believe there are really any English rugby fans out there who believe that Burrell is the difference between England reaching a semi-final or not. In fact if Burrell has been picked he would have been 4th choice and would probably barely have featured.

I think you're missing the point Dave. When the tam was announced it was ALL about burgess making the cut, not burgess over Burrell. My point is if England fail to make it then this selection will be held up as the crazy litmus test indicative that Stewie has lost the plot and is unfit for purpose giving the nay sayers the basis for an argument to dismiss Stewie, if they do well it will be the genius cause celebre.

If we do badly then those who don't like SL would find a reason to call for him to go even if Burgess wasn't in the squad. Indeed they'd probably blame our failure on the omission of Burgess......

DaveM wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

DaveM wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Lnacaster is kind of screwed, anything less than a semi final and it will be all about Burgess being a crazy selection (and he is) and he will be back to teaching mini rugby before you can say 'I meant to pick luther honest"

I think you are rather overstating how good a player Burrell is. He's decent, no more, and I cannot believe there are really any English rugby fans out there who believe that Burrell is the difference between England reaching a semi-final or not. In fact if Burrell has been picked he would have been 4th choice and would probably barely have featured.

I think you're missing the point Dave. When the tam was announced it was ALL about burgess making the cut, not burgess over Burrell. My point is if England fail to make it then this selection will be held up as the crazy litmus test indicative that Stewie has lost the plot and is unfit for purpose giving the nay sayers the basis for an argument to dismiss Stewie, if they do well it will be the genius cause celebre.

If we do badly then those who don't like SL would find a reason to call for him to go even if Burgess wasn't in the squad. Indeed they'd probably blame our failure on the omission of Burgess......

I'd agree with that, burgess is a bit of a pain in the ass in that sense. Point is i don't think ENlgnad are going to do very well based on what i have seen. Id like to be surpried (sort of) but that is why i think this weekend has to be a must win for their first xv.

Gwlad wrote:

DaveM wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

DaveM wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Lnacaster is kind of screwed, anything less than a semi final and it will be all about Burgess being a crazy selection (and he is) and he will be back to teaching mini rugby before you can say 'I meant to pick luther honest"

I think you are rather overstating how good a player Burrell is. He's decent, no more, and I cannot believe there are really any English rugby fans out there who believe that Burrell is the difference between England reaching a semi-final or not. In fact if Burrell has been picked he would have been 4th choice and would probably barely have featured.

I think you're missing the point Dave. When the tam was announced it was ALL about burgess making the cut, not burgess over Burrell. My point is if England fail to make it then this selection will be held up as the crazy litmus test indicative that Stewie has lost the plot and is unfit for purpose giving the nay sayers the basis for an argument to dismiss Stewie, if they do well it will be the genius cause celebre.

If we do badly then those who don't like SL would find a reason to call for him to go even if Burgess wasn't in the squad. Indeed they'd probably blame our failure on the omission of Burgess......

I'd agree with that, burgess is a bit of a pain in the ass in that sense. Point is i don't think ENlgnad are going to do very well based on what i have seen. Id like to be surpried (sort of) but that is why i think this weekend has to be a must win for their first xv.

But we agree that picking Burgess is unlikely to be the key determinant between England doing well or not? For me it's about the forwards. If they do well then England will be fine, as we have a lot of talent in our backline.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Whats your thoughts on Rowntrees comments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11718000/England-hope-to-play-quick-World-Cup-game-with-trim-conditioned-pack-says-Rowntree.html

This has been there thinking for a while, although I can see how the NZ tests would have reinforced it. It does go against what you've been calling for - more focus on power and carrying in the pack. England want good ball skills and the ability to get around the pitch well for a full 80 if necessary. This is why Kruis was favoured over Attwood, and this is why a player like Garvey would never be selected.

DaveM the issue that no other flanker bar Haskell,Wood and Robshaw have been a good go for England. Lancaster failed to try the likes of Ksevic and Itoje so we don't know what they could have done.


I have never perceived Kruis as being particularly fast, skilled sure but not pacy. Are any of our forwards really that fast? T.Youngs is but he's lightweight.

The NZ forwards and backs work as one. Couldn't say that England backs and forwards do the same.

Compare Read to Billy/Morgan.

England need to have their own style IMO - not try and imitate the ABs.

Its the forwards that England need to get right and the Burgess issue is a sideshow to this. England's forwards have been bullied and out muscled twice by France and there appear to be uncertainties from the front row, 2nd row and back row with no one really standing out. Another poor show up front on Saturday and there's a lot of thinking to be done. It should be a titanic battle and whilst a narrow defeat for England wouldn't be a disaster a poor showing from their 8 forwards would not be far off. Good luck for Saturday and the RWC.

Shouldn't we be changing the name of this article to 'So when will Gatland resign.....I guess after the wc once the wrfu have paid up'...

Jimpy wrote:Shouldn't we be changing the name of this article to 'So when will Gatland resign.....I guess after the wc once the wrfu have paid up'...

What a typically crass remark. Gatland is not responsible for the injury crisis Wales face and while true rugby fans acknowledge that, there are of course always a few idiots who use it for a cheap shot.