England Squad Announcement - 27/08/2014

by thomh Mon Aug 24, 2015 1:42 pm

First topic message reminder :

England 2015 Rugby World Cup squad rose

Props:
Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints, 10 caps)
Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 51 caps)
Joe Marler (Harlequins, 32 caps)
Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 22 caps)
David Wilson (Bath Rugby, 43 caps)

Hookers:
Jamie George (Saracens, 1 cap)
Rob Webber (Bath Rugby, 13 caps)
Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 23 caps)

Second rows:
George Kruis (Saracens, 8 caps)
Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 23 caps)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 39 caps)
Geoff Parling (Exeter Chiefs, 24 caps)

Back rows:
James Haskell (Wasps, 60 caps)
Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby, 28 caps)
Chris Robshaw (captain, Harlequins, 38 caps)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 18 caps)
Tom Wood (Northampton Saints, 37 caps)

Scrum halves:
Danny Care (Harlequins, 52 caps)
Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens, 22 caps)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 48 caps)

Fly halves:
Owen Farrell (Saracens, 30 caps)
George Ford (Bath Rugby, 12 caps)

Centres:
Brad Barritt (Saracens, 22 caps)
Sam Burgess (Bath Rugby, 1 cap)
Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 12 caps)
Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 1 cap)

Back three:
Mike Brown (Harlequins, 38 caps)
Alex Goode (Saracens, 18 caps)
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby, 15 caps)
Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 9 caps)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, 10 caps)

by Sgt_Pooly Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:44 pm

lostinwales wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:The Burgess selection is an absolute joke, SL has lost the plot.

So one selection invalidates the other 30?

Yep.

by No 7&1/2 Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:50 pm

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 interesting you mention Johnson because Lancaster would be doing a Johnson if he sticks Farrell at 12....

You talk about an attacking game - do attacking games really win RWCs? Or is it more about hard nosed defence?

The worry about Barritt IMO is his lack of gametime at international level and he's not played with Joseph yet.

Probably the best balance wins normally. I dont think theres a team that sticks out as relying too heavily on 1 whos won. I dont think this selection by Lancaster can play better defensively than offensively though.

by **Rugby Fan** Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:52 pm

fa0019 wrote:However their team is simply not up to standard compared. They don't have the ability IMO to pull the rabbit out of the hat.

Perhaps the comparison to make is with England in 2007. Poor results leading up, but enough bloody-mindedness, and a solid set piece, to beat sides which had looked better on paper.

by No 7&1/2 Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:54 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
lostinwales wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:The Burgess selection is an absolute joke, SL has lost the plot.

So one selection invalidates the other 30?

Yep.

Just wants a big guy who can carry and tackle. Id agree with an earlier comment that he ll cover Barritt. It ll be Slade with the more realistic chance though for me.

by thomh Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:03 pm

If Joseph gets injured I assume Slade will come in at 13? That gives us a great amount of skill in the backline but they still need some strike runners to pass it to. That would probably finally rule out Goode at 15, but does anyone think they'd consider bringing Burgess in for Barritt as an unenforced change as well in those circumstances, just to give us a bit more of a running threat?

Attwood is the only one whose omission I'm a bit worried about. He's got the physicality to make a big impact off the bench if the game becomes a warzone, he can scrummage well behind the tighthead and is a very good lineout option as well. If our set-piece or maul defence is struggling in one of the big games I think we might wonder why he's not there. I know there are questions over his form, but he's always impressed off the bench for England.

by GunsGerms Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:04 pm

Burgess ahead of Burrell is a crazy call. Burrell had a fairly successful six nations campaign behind him in 2014 plus 12 caps. Not sure what Burgess has done to merit a place in the squad?

Has someone somewhere put a load of pressure on Lancaster over Burgess? Is this some sort of political or financial decision? Seems a really odd call.

England have a history of picking rugby league players at centre that have gone on to be union flops. Hape, Farrell, Eastmond, Tompkins, Paul etc.

Burrell was one of the few I can think of that actually worked.

by Wi11 Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

beshocked wrote:wi11 not sure where you get these "stats" but they are pretty flawed.

Hi, I worked them out myself. Took about half an hour on espnscrum.com. Having just checked them again, I notice one error - it should be 0.94 for the backs tries per game with Barritt, not 0.76. That doesn't hugely change things. I can assure you I compiled the figures in good faith, and I can't see any great flaws in what I am doing - I'd suggest their main flaw is not conforming with your beliefs.

England outscored France in the try department in the recent game but they lost. The boot was more important.

Barritt doesn't kick, so what is your point? Does he stop people giving away penalties? Not to the tune of 10 points a game, I bet

2015? Not even sure Barritt played in an England match this year.

As for 2014 he didn't start in any 6 nations game. In the AIs it was messy as you had him shunted to 13 and playing in a weird 10- centre combo.

Excuses. We were far more makeshift in the preceding score to NZ and yet scored twice as many tries as in the AIs with Barritt. And a team with a far from convincing Farrell-36 combination was running in tries for fun in the 6N that year

2012-13 - not easy playing in a backline in transition. Winning was more important and 8/10 in those 6 nations.

Yet as I showed we still scored at a decent rate when Barritt wasn't there. Don't forget too that many teams were rebuilding in this period

Some of England's best wins like vs Australia, NZ and Ireland away were with Barritt in there.

I don't recall any inspiring wins over Aus, which were you thinking of? Ireland away was a good win with a gameplan that would probably lose to the current Ireland team in good conditions. NZ was a combo of an inspired Tuilagi and an inspired norovirus. I wouldn't read much into it

He was also playing 13 when England demolished Scotland in 2013.

I dare you to bring up the Italy and Wales games from that season. And let's face it, that was the business end, with the sort of pressure Barritt is supposed to perform under at the RWC

Barritt hasn't really had a fair go in an attacking backline IMO. The theory that he will completely make the whole backline stodgy hasn't been proven because he's not been given a proper go.

Yes we have steadily brought more exciting players in, but as I showed even before that we scored plenty more tries when Barritt wasn't playing. Basically I agree with you that Barritt has perhaps played under slightly less favourable conditions, but it's a wild claim that those were so unfavourable as to account for all the difference. He's mostly played the same opposition and with similar players around him.

He's been picked for the reasons screamingaddabs and Bambam have said. He's seen as the defensive glue which will keep the England side from going unstuck.

I looked at that. He does appear to slightly improve our defence, but only a bit. His effect on attack is far greater to go by these figures

He's never been a particularly fashionable player but he's a solid dependable rock who will help the inexperienced Ford. As long as he's fit.

I'm not convinced Ford needs help. Bar a scratchy first 20 against France, having not played for months, he has looked pretty damned assured for us. And if Ford is struggling, I think the solution is to bring in Farrell, not try to shore things up with Barritt

by Sgt_Pooly Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:15 pm

GunsGerms wrote:Burgess ahead of Burrell is a crazy call. Burrell had a fairly successful six nations campaign behind him in 2014 plus 12 caps. Not sure what Burgess has done to merit a place in the squad?

Has someone somewhere put a load of pressure on Lancaster over Burgess? Is this some sort of political or financial decision? Seems a really odd call.

England have a history of picking rugby league players at centre that have gone on to be union flops. Hape, Farrell, Eastmond, Tompkins, Paul etc.

Burrell was one of the few I can think of that actually worked.

100% agree.

Burgess has no positional awareness and doesn't understand the rules of union. It seems the casual supporter is getting excited because he made a few big hits but he was all over the place against France. Burrell plays 12 & 13 to a proven good standard, it's a crazy call.

by fa0019 Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:20 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:
fa0019 wrote:However their team is simply not up to standard compared. They don't have the ability IMO to pull the rabbit out of the hat.
Perhaps the comparison to make is with England in 2007. Poor results leading up, but enough bloody-mindedness, and a solid set piece, to beat sides which had looked better on paper.

Remember as bad as it was... it still had Vickery, Shaw, Corry, Kay, Dillaglio, Easter, Moody in the pack alone. The centres were poor but it still had JW, Lewsey and Robinson.

by Wi11 Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:23 pm

GunsGerms wrote:Burgess ahead of Burrell is a crazy call. Burrell had a fairly successful six nations campaign behind him in 2014 plus 12 caps. Not sure what Burgess has done to merit a place in the squad?

Has someone somewhere put a load of pressure on Lancaster over Burgess? Is this some sort of political or financial decision? Seems a really odd call.

England have a history of picking rugby league players at centre that have gone on to be union flops. Hape, Farrell, Eastmond, Tompkins, Paul etc.

Burrell was one of the few I can think of that actually worked.

I guess there might be some perceived advantage to picking Burgess along these lines: if he isn't picked, it will be discouraging to other RL stars considering a switch. I think this argument is flawed but I could see the RFU buying into it. Also, Burgess is a big name and will get attention from fans who might otherwise not have followed the tournament. Then again Wade would also enthuse a lot of wavering fans, and that hasn't made them touch him with a bargepole...

by thomh Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:26 pm

I don't hink Hape was nearly as bad as people make out. He put in some good performances for England but his body was failing him by the end of his career and his since come out that he had some pretty horrendous issues with concussion. Similarly Farrell was physically past his best by the time he made it into Union.

Bit unfair to call Eastmond a union flop as well. He's not really broken through as an international but that's not through a failure to adapt to the code.

by GunsGerms Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:30 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
100% agree.

Burgess has no positional awareness and doesn't understand the rules of union. It seems the casual supporter is getting excited because he made a few big hits but he was all over the place against France. Burrell plays 12 & 13 to a proven good standard, it's a crazy call.

Did the RFU have any input in Burgess' switch from league to Bath? Also if Lancaster was going to bring Burgess over Burrell why did he pick Burrell for every 6 nations game this year and Burgess for none?

Even Cipriani got game time. Burgess, Barritt and Slade didnt. Wierd.

by lostinwales Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:35 pm

GunsGerms wrote:Burgess ahead of Burrell is a crazy call. Burrell had a fairly successful six nations campaign behind him in 2014 plus 12 caps. Not sure what Burgess has done to merit a place in the squad?

Has someone somewhere put a load of pressure on Lancaster over Burgess? Is this some sort of political or financial decision? Seems a really odd call.

England have a history of picking rugby league players at centre that have gone on to be union flops. Hape, Farrell, Eastmond, Tompkins, Paul etc.

Burrell was one of the few I can think of that actually worked.

He was at 13 in 2014 and did very well. He was at 12 this year and was in my view a real weak link in an otherwise excellent England backline. He's not been on form. Same for 36 really

My best thinking is that the things Burgess does do well (tackling very hard and trucking the ball up) he does better than Burrell. Burrell has much more experience (particularly at center) and will be a more rounded (and quicker) player but neither of them are kickers. He also has a lot of presence and leadership qualities which for a young and inexperienced team can be useful.

Most people here would prefer to see Burgess at 6, but while not ideal I think he can do a job at 12

by thomh Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:36 pm

GunsGerms wrote:

Did the RFU have any input in Burgess' switch from league to Bath? Also if Lancaster was going to bring Burgess over Burrell why did he pick Burrell for every 6 nations game this year and Burgess for none?

Even Cipriani got game time. Burgess, Barritt and Slade didnt. Wierd.

Barritt was injured for the whole Six Nations, Burgess had even less experience back then - if you think it's ridiculous to pick him now then picking him during the six nations would have been positively unhinged. His recent performance against France was on a completely different level to what he produced for the Saxons v Wolfhounds game in February.

Also remember that Ford, Joseph and Watson were relative newbies back then, and there's only so many completely inexperienced players it's sensible to pick en masse.

by lostinwales Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:37 pm

thomh wrote:I don't hink Hape was nearly as bad as people make out. He put in some good performances for England but his body was failing him by the end of his career and his since come out that he had some pretty horrendous issues with concussion. Similarly Farrell was physically past his best by the time he made it into Union.

Bit unfair to call Eastmond a union flop as well. He's not really broken through as an international but that's not through a failure to adapt to the code.

Agree completely. Eastmond plus Manu (or with Farrell) to cover the size issues might be a lot of fun, but the likelyhood is that the new talent coming through will surpass him anyway.

by Guest Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:45 pm

It's a list of 31 players but match-day squads are only 21. Will Burgess start any game - maybe Uruguay, when the Pool's been decided?

by thomh Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:48 pm

Uruguay will depend entirely whether we've won our other games. If so, then we probably don't need to worry about bonus points or points difference barring a mathematical monstrosity, so will be able to give non-starters a go.

by doctor_grey Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:54 pm

optimist wrote:It's a list of 31 players but match-day squads are only 21. Will Burgess start any game - maybe Uruguay, when the Pool's been decided?

Match day squads are only 21? Not 23?

by Wi11 Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:05 pm

thomh wrote:Uruguay will depend entirely whether we've won our other games. If so, then we probably don't need to worry about bonus points or points difference barring a mathematical monstrosity, so will be able to give non-starters a go.

Even if we do need the points difference, I don't think picking our first XV is the right call. The first XV will be tired, and besides they aren't necessarily our best attacking XV, which is what we really want in that situation!

by thomh Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:08 pm

Sure, but it might affect the balance. If all we need is the win then I can see almost the whole first xv rested

by majesticimperialman Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:43 pm

I think Burgess is lucky to be in the squad to be honest, yes he had a good game against France, but will his tackling be the norm, or what that a one off.

I thought Burrell would have been in a head of Slade.

by Poorfour Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:26 pm

majesticimperialman wrote:I think Burgess is lucky to be in the squad to be honest, yes he had a good game against France, but will his tackling be the norm, or what that a one off.

I thought Burrell would have been in a head of Slade.

I'd have had it the other way round - Slade > Burrell > Burgess. But I am guessing the coaches see Burgess as offering something similar to Burrell while being on a faster improvement curve. And I also suspect that his attitude in camp and influence on training may have swung the decision - Lancaster has mentioned it explicitly and the other coaches have hinted at it.

by kingelderfield Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:48 pm

Forgive me Beshocked but I have to be honest and say theres a number of selections I disagree with and the majority of those are Saracens players;

Kruis
Wigglesworth
Barritt
Goode

Plus;

Webber
Parling
Haskell
Wood
Burgess

Instead I would have selected; Attwood, Simpson, 36, Cipriani, Hartley, Ed Slater Captain, Beaumont, Kvesic & Burrell

by Poorfour Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:08 pm

kingelderfield, who would you replace them with?

Because England have 732 caps in that squad, and the 9 selections you object to have 205 of them. That's a pretty typical caps per head figure, for this squad, but most of the people you can replace them with will have fewer.

For context, the All Blacks will probably field an XV with over 700 caps at some point.

by Sgt_Pooly Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:21 pm

Slater, Simpson, Beaumont & Kvesic?!?!

They'd be lucky to make a Scottish 31!

by kingelderfield Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:25 pm

Poorfour wrote:kingelderfield, who would you replace them with?

Because England have 732 caps in that squad, and the 9 selections you object to have 205 of them. That's a pretty typical caps per head figure, for this squad, but most of the people you can replace them with will have fewer.

For context, the All Blacks will probably field an XV with over 700 caps at some point.

Burgess is a 6 full stop and maybe could have been selected as such. That would have been a very marginal call though would have had some legitimacy. Why has he been selected at centre, is he the entertainments rep?

As for the Saracen players, none of them are more than good club players who have played in a very well managed regimented winning club. That is not enough at this level. Add to that Barritt is injured!

Neither Wood or Parling have delivered on past performances (Launchbury and Morgan are risks) and Haskell too has slipped behind his branded mask.

by No 7&1/2 Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:28 pm

No Eastmond or Wade now king?

by kingelderfield Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:28 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Slater, Simpson, Beaumont & Kvesic?!?!

They'd be lucky to make a Scottish 31!

You think so, well atleast they'd then reach the 1/4 final

by kingelderfield Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:36 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:No Eastmond or Wade now king?

Its fag paper between 36 and Eastmond, as for Wade its a bloody shame but he's had a poor post injury season. There's no doubt he's lost confidence - he was making poor positional judgements at times that he just didn't make before. I really hope the injury is now history and hasn't had any longer lasting effects to his speed and confidence. Here's hoping he has a quality 15/16 season.

by No 7&1/2 Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:47 pm

Thought you d be after both in the squad. Which Wade injury, hes always been a bit under review due to positioning. No Yarde? You d take 3 8s?

by Geordie Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:54 pm

So if all fit....team should be:

1 Marler
2 Youngs
3 Cole
4 Launchbury
5 Lawes
6 Wood
7 Robshaw
8 Vunipola

9 Youngs
10 Ford
11 May
12 Barritt (Burgess if Barritt is injured)
13 Joseph
14 Watson
15 Brown

Is that good enough to win it?

by thomh Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:01 pm

Any one of 6 or so teams is good enough to win it if they perform consistently and pull out a big performance when needed. If we get out of the group then I think we'll reach the final, but that first bit is going to be tough. I'm still not completely sure that pack can match the Boks, but if they stay fit then maybe.

by screamingaddabs Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:03 pm

GF, don't forget subs. They could make one hell of a difference.

I don't think we will win it, but I never did. Too early after the ridiculous 2005 to 2011 years.

That team (though probably Nowell not May), with some good subs (slade would be one for me), can definitely beat Wales, Uruguay and Fiji. Have a shout at beating Australia. Could well progress to the semis and from there who knows.

I guess the question really is "who would you put in the 1st 15/23 that isn't there?"

Apart from probably Hartley I can't think of anyone that was really going to get into the starting 15 or possibly the 23 outside of the squad we have.

by Poorfour Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:04 pm

kingelderfield wrote:
Poorfour wrote:kingelderfield, who would you replace them with?

Because England have 732 caps in that squad, and the 9 selections you object to have 205 of them. That's a pretty typical caps per head figure, for this squad, but most of the people you can replace them with will have fewer.

For context, the All Blacks will probably field an XV with over 700 caps at some point.

Burgess is a 6 full stop and maybe could have been selected as such. That would have been a very marginal call though would have had some legitimacy. Why has he been selected at centre, is he the entertainments rep?

As for the Saracen players, none of them are more than good club players who have played in a very well managed regimented winning club. That is not enough at this level. Add to that Barritt is injured!

Neither Wood or Parling have delivered on past performances (Launchbury and Morgan are risks) and Haskell too has slipped behind his branded mask.

Yes, but who would you have in their place?

by No 7&1/2 Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:06 pm

He said at the bootom of his port poor.

by kingelderfield Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:14 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought you d be after both in the squad. Which Wade injury, hes always been a bit under review due to positioning. No Yarde? You d take 3 8s?

He had serious foot inury 2013 that kept him out for 6 month plus and has effected him ever since. I can understand Yarde's position in the pecking order.

Beaumont had a fantastic season and could play 6; Kvesic, Vunipola, Beaumont

by Mr Bounce Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:16 pm

Makes me wonder if SL et al were under pressure from the RFU to include Burgess as there must have been some funding for his switch?

by No 7&1/2 Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:19 pm

kingelderfield wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought you d be after both in the squad. Which Wade injury, hes always been a bit under review due to positioning. No Yarde? You d take 3 8s?

He had serious foot inury 2013 that kept him out for 6 month plus and has effected him ever since. I can understand Yarde's position in the pecking order.

Beaumont had a fantastic season and could play 6; Kvesic, Vunipola, Beaumont

Oh. You considered Wade your number 1 in March this year and Yarde his back up thats all. Just wondered if Lancasters choices had changed your mind.Beumont at 6? Ok thought he shot himself in the foot vs baa baas myself. Low number of carrys and poor in the lineout.

by nobbled Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:20 pm

There is a secret behind the selection of Burgess - remember you heard it here first.
They discovered in training that he is amazing at the line-out.
Not as a receiver - but as a thrower.
He is going to solve our hooker "can't hit a barn door" problem.
He's also going to be covering 6 as well as 12.

If you don't believe me it's in the Daily Mail later this week.

by kingelderfield Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:29 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:He said at the bootom of his port poor.

I was editing when he replied - I don't drink Port!

by Poorfour Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:06 pm

kingelderfield wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:He said at the bootom of his port poor.

I was editing when he replied - I don't drink Port!

Sorry I missed it - didn't scroll down far enough before I posted. I could agree with some of those (mostly the ones who were close calls for the squad anyway) but my point stands. A lot of the players you'd bring in have none or very little international experience and I think it's too risky to drop that level of inexperience into an already inexperienced squad.

Arguably some of them could have been given experience earlier in the cycle, but there are good reasons why most of them didn't get it. Simpson has only recently got his basic scrum half skills up to snuff. Slater has been injured at the wrong times.

As for Beaumont, the closest he's come to international experience so far was the Barbarians game, and while he was good in it he wasn't better than Vunipola or Morgan when they're fully fit, or as good as Easter looked in his cameo on Saturday. He wasn't even the best England back row player on the pitch.

He'll be one of a number of back rows vying to get into the squad after the RWC, but he'll have a job on his hands shifting the incumbents.

by doctor_grey Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:08 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:So if all fit....team should be:

1 Marler
2 Youngs
3 Cole
4 Launchbury
5 Lawes
6 Wood
7 Robshaw
8 Vunipola

9 Youngs
10 Ford
11 May
12 Barritt (Burgess if Barritt is injured)
13 Joseph
14 Watson
15 Brown

Is that good enough to win it?

Strangely......yes. England can win.

Looking at the 31 man team, I am wondering about the injury assessment and management process. There are quite a few players coming off seasons where they had injuries. Brown, Launchbury, Morgan, Barritt, Farrell, and so on. Assuming each player had intelligent and prudent management of their injury and recovery (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise), then each should be fine. I think the number of players in the RWC squad coming off serious injury is higher than I recall in the past, and that raises red flags for me. I will be watching with just a little extra concern this time around.

by offload Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:55 pm

Well I'll have to eat my hat or, whatever it was I said I'd eat if SL was stupid enough to pick Burgess. I like the bloke and I think he could be a world class back row in time, but he is definitely not one of the best 4 centres in England, far from it.

Lancaster will rue his decision.

England will not win the WC because they have a conservative and sulky coach, and more importantly they lack the world class players that got them there in 2003. Name one England player that would make a world XV ?

by DaveM Fri Aug 28, 2015 12:35 am

kingelderfield wrote:Forgive me Beshocked but I have to be honest and say theres a number of selections I disagree with and the majority of those are Saracens players;

Kruis
Wigglesworth
Barritt
Goode

Plus;

Webber
Parling
Haskell
Wood
Burgess

Instead I would have selected; Attwood (consistently disappointing recently for England and not the line-out option or tackling that Kruis offers), Simpson, 36, Cipriani, Hartley, Ed Slater Captain, Beaumont, Kvesic & Burrell

Attwood: consistently disappointing recently for England and not the line-out option or tackling that Kruis offers
Simpson: Injured at the wrong time, and Wigglesworth had a good season and has played in bigger games than Simpson
36: I've always been a 36 fan, and SL gave him loads of chances, but he's just not done enough with them. His time is past now.
Cipriani: Goode is a better fullback. Cips will probably be called up at some point during the tournament
Hartley: Banned for one game, and his discipline is an obvious liability
Ed Slater Captain: Injured for too long in the WC build up to have had much chance.
Beaumont: Not a credible option yet
Kvesic: Given a chance in training and didn't do it. Currently behind Clark.
Burrell: Obviously a very tight call with Burgess. May well yet feature.

Other than the 3 players cut today (and Hartley if he han't got banned) I don't think any of your suggestions were anywhere near being picked.

by DaveM Fri Aug 28, 2015 12:48 am

offload wrote:Well I'll have to eat my hat or, whatever it was I said I'd eat if SL was stupid enough to pick Burgess. I like the bloke and I think he could be a world class back row in time, but he is definitely not one of the best 4 centres in England, far from it.

Lancaster will rue his decision.

England will not win the WC because they have a conservative and sulky coach, and more importantly they lack the world class players that got them there in 2003. Name one England player that would make a world XV ?

I'm not sure how him being conservative tallies with Burgess and Slade coming from nowhere to the WC squad in a couple of months.

Burgess probably won't feature much, as he appears to be behind Slade. I think he's been picked as much for his off-field impact as for his potential on the pitch, as he's got a presence to him that the coaches probably value. He was the best RL forward in the world (and therefore a better player than any of the converts since Robinson), and that does give him a certain X factor. If he does play I think he's the sort of character who will rise to the occasion though - he's a born winner. Stephen Jones must be livid mind you.

England probably won't win the WC because they are a young and inexperienced group, and experience tends to count in WCs. By the end of the tournament though, if it goes reasonably well for England then players like Watson, Joseph, Ford or Farrell, Lawes, Launchbury, B Vunipola, B Youngs, and Cole might be in with a shout as world XV candidates (obviously it would only be a few of them who would make it even in the best case). England don't lack ability, just caps. And a settled IC.

by stub Fri Aug 28, 2015 12:58 am

doctor_grey wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:So if all fit....team should be:

1 Marler
2 Youngs
3 Cole
4 Launchbury
5 Lawes
6 Wood
7 Robshaw
8 Vunipola

9 Youngs
10 Ford
11 May
12 Barritt (Burgess if Barritt is injured)
13 Joseph
14 Watson
15 Brown

Is that good enough to win it?
Strangely......yes. England can win.

Looking at the 31 man team, I am wondering about the injury assessment and management process. There are quite a few players coming off seasons where they had injuries. Brown, Launchbury, Morgan, Barritt, Farrell, and so on. Assuming each player had intelligent and prudent management of their injury and recovery (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise), then each should be fine. I think the number of players in the RWC squad coming off serious injury is higher than I recall in the past, and that raises red flags for me. I will be watching with just a little extra concern this time around.

Yep. Of course England can win - we're just about to find out if we do. rose

by kingelderfield Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:17 am

So its Burrell to replace the injured Barritt then?

by Exiledinborders Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:25 am

I do wonder about the fairness of the selection process. It has been obvious that Burgess would be in from the day he signed for Bath and similarly that Cipriani would be out. It was telling that in his explanations yesterday Lancaster pointed to Burgess' performance against France as a reason to pick him. However when referring to Cipriani's good performance he dismissed this indicating that you cannot read to much into it just because the ball happened to break for him.

If Lancaster wanted to pick Burgess from the start why waste Burrell's time. Similarly as he was never going to pick Cipriani why waste his time and why not just allow Brown and Goode more game time. It appears that Lancaster picked the sides for the warm ups for public relations reasons - to give a sheen of fairness.

by offload Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:26 am

DaveM wrote:
offload wrote:Well I'll have to eat my hat or, whatever it was I said I'd eat if SL was stupid enough to pick Burgess. I like the bloke and I think he could be a world class back row in time, but he is definitely not one of the best 4 centres in England, far from it.

Lancaster will rue his decision.

England will not win the WC because they have a conservative and sulky coach, and more importantly they lack the world class players that got them there in 2003. Name one England player that would make a world XV ?

I'm not sure how him being conservative tallies with Burgess and Slade coming from nowhere to the WC squad in a couple of months.

Burgess probably won't feature much, as he appears to be behind Slade. I think he's been picked as much for his off-field impact as for his potential on the pitch, as he's got a presence to him that the coaches probably value. He was the best RL forward in the world (and therefore a better player than any of the converts since Robinson), and that does give him a certain X factor. If he does play I think he's the sort of character who will rise to the occasion though - he's a born winner. Stephen Jones must be livid mind you.

England probably won't win the WC because they are a young and inexperienced group, and experience tends to count in WCs. By the end of the tournament though, if it goes reasonably well for England then players like Watson, Joseph, Ford or Farrell, Lawes, Launchbury, B Vunipola, B Youngs, and Cole might be in with a shout as world XV candidates (obviously it would only be a few of them who would make it even in the best case). England don't lack ability, just caps. And a settled IC.

Dave, I don't disagree with your comments. Burgess does have an X factor, but that doesn't make him a rugby union centre. There is a conservatism to picking a big bloke who can tackle. Gatland often says "selection is a just a personal opinion". He's right of course and head coaches are paid for their opinions.

by Guest Fri Aug 28, 2015 8:07 am

doctor_grey wrote:
optimist wrote:It's a list of 31 players but match-day squads are only 21. Will Burgess start any game - maybe Uruguay, when the Pool's been decided?
Match day squads are only 21? Not 23?

Sorry, you're right - 23. But my comment about Burgess starting against Uruguay may be right too because England v Uruguay is the last match in Pool A when all other games have been decided.

by Sponsored content