England Squad Announcement - 27/08/2014

First topic message reminder :

England 2015 Rugby World Cup squad

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)

optimist wrote:

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.

Might not points v Uruguay still matter?

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.

Maybe not but it is more how the RFU consistantly try to shoehorn League players into the England centre when there are other perfectably good union options around.

Anyone know why Lancaster picked Burrell ahead of Burgess in the 6 nations. That wasnt that long ago, yet on the basis of one cap in a meaningless warmup game Burgess is going to the WC ahead of Burrell.

If I was Burrell I would be livid.

Because he felt Burgess wasn't ready for the 6Ns and probably felt that Tuilagi would be back for the WC to provide the really strong carrying option. Like saying why wasn't Slade picked; it's a choice at the time.

GunsGerms wrote:Anyone know why Lancaster picked Burrell ahead of Burgess in the 6 nations. That wasnt that long ago, yet on the basis of one cap in a meaningless warmup game Burgess is going to the WC ahead of Burrell.

If I was Burrell I would be livid.

There are these things called experience and training which can change and hopefully improve players over time. Given when he joined Bath Burgess was never ready for the 6N (although he spent time training with England at the time) and is still on a very steep learning curve. The fact that he has made the final squad is remarkable. He would not likely have done so if one of the alternatives had shown enough to get ahead of him, but as was said last time you asked a very similar question Burrell hasn't been great in his chances at IC and 36 also seems off form. I am hoping that Barritt is on form but we just don't know for sure yet.

If Tuilagi had been remotely fit and hadn't pushed a policewoman then he would have been there instead. There are a fair few promising alternatives but they are very inexperienced and possibly the best of them, Slade, has actually made it into the squad.

(As for Cipriani its not that he isn't good enough to go, it is that the 2 FH's picked are seen as better. If there is an injury he'll be back)

Last night I read the below by Dean Ryan and totally agreed with him and felt a bit pessimistic.

"So after all that, England go into a World Cup with two centres each looking for their second caps and a likely pairing who have not played together unless it was behind closed doors. Somehow it says it all about the past four years.

For three of them, when England were being pulled up from the depths, Stuart Lancaster was great, inspirational, the man who raised the bar to acceptable levels. In the past year? It’s a bit like watching a boxing trainer who can get his man as fit as a flea but then can’t get the timing right or make him sharp for the big night. In England’s case they are still learning about themselves. Partnerships and players which should have been tried last autumn, or against Italy in the Six Nations, at the latest, are still untested.

Against Ireland not only do Brad Barritt and Jonathan Joseph have to play together for the first time, but Henry Slade has to play alongside Joseph. In a week’s time, and in the last game before they kick off against Fiji, Lancaster, rather than adding a final polish to his midfield, will be making up for lost time. Why, when both Slade and Sam Burgess badly needed game time, did England pick Billy Twelvetrees for Paris when it has been perfectly obvious for a season that the Gloucester centre’s game was off colour?

And Burgess? Well, the signs have been there for a long time, with the Bath man now elbowing out England’s inside-centre of choice throughout the Six Nations. It is not Burgess’s fault that the England coaches seem to be about the only ones who reckon the league convert is ready for a union World Cup, but you got some understanding of their reasoning when, on Wednesday, Andy Farrell was explaining Danny Cipriani’s omission: “Twenty minutes of rugby cannot be the sole reason you pick someone. Or even 60 minutes of rugby,” said Lancaster’s right-hand man.

“Selection has to be based on what’s right for the group. About what you’ve learnt about a person – his character, his skill levels, his leadership – after working with him day in and day out … We don’t deal in perception. If we did that, we’d become blinkered. You have to go on facts.” If that was a death sentence for Cipriani, it was as much a “welcome onboard” message to Burgess and I worry about the emphasis in being the “right kind of bloke”.

Earlier this week a coach involved in England’s World Cup group was wondering why they were going into the competition without Dylan Hartley and Cipriani. I would also suggest that Chris Ashton’s departure from the England fold so long ago was more for the sins of the past rather than the form of the present. It also signalled an end for another player who might have made a difference coming off the bench when England need points to get back into the game. In fact, it’s a bit of a theme which runs through the squad.

A match-day 23 isn’t just your best XV starting and the next best eight on the bench in case of injury. You are looking for players who can make a difference to the scoreboard and the way the game is played. For example, was it just a fluke that Billy Vunipola suddenly became a threat in Paris last Saturday when Danny Care came on?

If you say there is not so much gloss, more plenty of earnest effort about the back and front rows of the scrum, what is the argument about picking George Kruis as the fourth lock? Whereas Dave Attwood can offer genuine power, Kruis is more of the same when compared to the other three selected ahead of him.

Were I the guy who had to name England’s World Cup squad on Thursday, this is the 31 I would have gone with:

Front row Joe Marler, Mako Vunipola, Dylan Hartley, Tom Youngs, Jamie George, Dan Cole, David Wilson, Kieran Brookes. Locks Joe Launchbury, Courtney Lawes, Geoff Parling, Dave Attwood. Back row Tom Wood, James Haskell, Chris Robshaw, Billy Vunipola, Ben Morgan. Scrum-halves Ben Youngs, Danny Care, Richard Wigglesworth. Fly-halves Owen Farrell, George Ford. Centres Luther Burrell, Brad Barritt, Henry Slade, Jonathan Joseph. Back three Chris Ashton, Jonny May, Anthony Watson, Mike Brown, Alex Goode."

This morning I have just read Ian McGeechan's thoughts and feel more optimistic.

"As soon as I had watched Sam Burgess make his debut at Twickenham against France just under two weeks ago, I knew that he had to be in the squad for the World Cup.

Some might say it is a brave decision, others might say it is a gamble, but not me. It was a certainty after that match. And entirely the correct decision.

I just felt that he had a real presence in that game and I thought that everyone else then fed off that. This was clearly a player whom everyone respected.

Fly-half Owen Farrell looked far more confident than he has done for some time and Burgess’s fellow debutant Henry Slade played off him nicely too.

What you must consider is that it is not necessarily the impact one man can make but what the group looks like with him there. And in that first warm-up Test against France the England midfield looked pretty good with Burgess there.

When you are at arm’s length and not seeing training every day you simply cannot know the influence players are having there. Stuart Lancaster and his management have been talking about Burgess’s presence and excellence at training a lot but until he played against France there was no way for us external observers to judge. In that one match we could make our judgments, and by all accounts Burgess simply replicated what he had been doing in training.

You must never underestimate a player who can alter and improve the chemistry of a squad, and I genuinely think Burgess can do that. It looked obvious to me in that France game that that was what he was doing. It led to the England midfield having a refreshingly positive approach.

In the past we have been mystified as to the make-up of England’s best midfield, and the fact that there have been so many questions and so many changes in that area is because there has been no clear leader and presence there. That meant that the door was always going to be open for a player such as Burgess, provided that he could prove himself in union and give the right type of rugby performance on the field. He did that against France.

It is, of course, incredibly tough on Luther Burrell that he has missed out as one of the four centres. It is not that Burrell is not good enough, it is just a preference in looking at the impact upon the whole group.

I am also fully favour of Slade’s selection. I liked him in that France Test too, although I will say that if I had one query about him and Burgess that day it was about the quality of the opposition. It was not the French first-choice midfield, and so it would have been interesting to see them up against Wesley Fofana and Mathieu Bastareaud.

Nevertheless what impressed me about Slade that day was that he had so much time on the ball. He never panicked and as a result a lot of good calls were made. He did not make unforced errors.

If you compare that to Billy Twelvetrees, another centre who has been left out, you always knew that for England Twelvetrees would do a lot of good things but he was just as likely to do a number of bad things, too. It was why there was always a question mark next to his name in terms of selection.

Slade just exuded so much more confidence. He never looked vulnerable. Every time we have seen him in the last year for Exeter he has just looked very confident and very good in going about his game.

Of course, England have selected a quartet of centres with very little experience, just 48 caps between them, but that would not overly concern me, simply because nobody has nailed those centre spots, so it is not as if you are omitting players who have made unarguable cases.

There are even question marks about the most experienced centre, Brad Barritt, about what he can and cannot do, but with him you just look at his outstanding attitude and superb defensive work.

You look at the four centres, with the free-running Jonathan Joseph being the fourth, and you realise that all four can make a different type of impact. I am actually genuinely excited by the four of them. They all offer something that can influence a game.

I would start with Burgess against Fiji in the opener because I think they will need a physical presence there. You need someone to make a statement in the first 40 minutes so that Fiji do not get anything out of the game, and I think Burgess is best placed to do that. He can make those big hits he made against France. Imagine what a start to the World Cup that would be.

And I would start with Farrell at fly-half, too. I have said it before, but George Ford does concern me a little. Against France in Paris his game-management and decision-making were not good. He needed to have an influence on the game early that impacted upon his centres. But he did not do that.

Again I will say that the opposition was different, but the tactical decisions made by the Farrell/Burgess/Slade midfield were a lot better than those made last weekend by Ford/Burrell/Joseph.

There are some interesting decisions to be made about the make-up of the midfield in the weeks to come, but Lancaster has begun well by choosing the best four from which to select."

.....at this point the endless debate over selection will have to be replaced by overwhleming support for the team. We do need to get behind the team as the choices have now been made and I have to trust that SL and his coaching team are best placed to make those calls. I do question quite a few and do think Dean Ryan makes valid points, but it is now done so time to get supporting. Once it is all over then we can jump back on the criticism bandwagon, but for now it is fingers crossed time and best of luck to the boys.

Ryan would have picked Ashton over Nowell. Madness.

GunsGerms wrote:

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.

Maybe not but it is more how the RFU consistantly try to shoehorn League players into the England centre when there are other perfectably good union options around.

Ok but I just don't think that applies to Eastmond. He's proved himself as a union player over years and was given his England caps on the basis of that. I'd guess that most people who advocate his selection now are vaguely aware of his league background at most. It's just that he hasn't broken through as an international centre.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ryan would have picked Ashton over Nowell. Madness.

Yeh I don't really get what people aren't seeing in Nowell - Stephen Jones gave him a 5/10 for his performance against France but his stats were phenomenal. I wasn't that convinced when he first played for England but he's a nailed on starting winger for me now.

Exiledborders Cipriani is just one injury to either one of the FBs or a 10 away from being in the RWC.

Would NZ have expected to have had 3 injured 10s in the last RWC?

The likes of Morgan and Barritt still need to prove themselves in terms of fitness.

Easter and Burrell still could be involved.

kingelderfield think you're being very harsh calling the Saracens players just good club men.

The reason why you don't like them is because they are not flashy and not pacy. You seem to favour style over substance. One piece of brilliance compared to consistency. Of course the Saracens players have their weaknesses. Would be nice if Goode was a bit faster, Barritt was a bit more threatening with ball in hand etc but they have good skills too.

It's up to England to play to every player's strengths whether that be May,Haskell,Goode, whoever.

Sometimes it's difficult to tell whether it's the players' fault or poor management from the coaches. E.g. if you don't utilise a players' best strengths is it the players' fault?

Goode is a very smart player. Greenwood regularly praises him. Plus he's had another good season.

Barritt is a defence organiser, a leader and a rock in midfield.

As DaveM says Wigglesworth has more experience than Simpson and is in form.

Simpson is one of those players who I am not convinced has the big match temperament.


If May had been tearing up trees for England I would be praising him - he's had his moments like his try vs NZ but nothing to suggest he's better than his rivals IMO.

thomh wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ryan would have picked Ashton over Nowell. Madness.

Yeh I don't really get what people aren't seeing in Nowell - Stephen Jones gave him a 5/10 for his performance against France but his stats were phenomenal. I wasn't that convinced when he first played for England but he's a nailed on starting winger for me now.

Jones is just a wum though.

On the other hand, you could read Geech's view in the Telegraph, which is pretty much the opposite of what Ryan says. I know who I respect more as a coach and pundit.

You know what opinions are like... something that everyone has. However, not all opinions are equal. Fans' opinions are informed by their biases. Pundits' opinions are informed by the need to sell papers. Coaches' opinions are informed by having watched the players in question for 10 weeks in training, armed with GPS data, video analysis, input from their club coaches and many other things we don't have.

Lancaster has taken a chance on Burgess, slightly less of a chance on Slade and Morgan and taken a more conservative position on Hartley and Cipriani. But all of these are marginal calls and ones where he has more to go on than we do, regardless of what we think.

It's not as if he's done something as blatantly misinformed as Rowell's insistence that Back was too small for international rugby or Woodward dropping Wilkinson from the flyhalf slot because he had a bad dream. Or Brian Ashton's refusal to give the players any structure, Martin Johnson's reversion to his trusted lieutenants or Andy Robinson's entire selection policy.

We have the squad we have. It's not where we would ideally want it to be but - as Lancaster pointed out in 2012 - it could only ever have been that if the same core group he'd started with had stayed fit and performed consistently for 4 years. There was never more than a slim chance of that and the squad has had to cope with a concentration of injuries in the centres and losing a lot of its more experience players to injury or stupidity.

Dear PoorFour, quite possibly the most sensible, lucid and eloquent post in the entire thread.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ryan would have picked Ashton over Nowell. Madness.

Think it's a bit harsh to call it madness.

It's quite simple to defend Ryan's view point-

Chris Ashton is the most experienced winger that could have been picked. More caps than all the other wingers in the squad combined.

He was joint top try scorer in the previous RWC.

He scored more tries in the AP and ERCC than Nowell.

He's still got a higher try strike rate than Nowell.

Wasn't particularly exposed defensively.


Now personally I would have picked Ashton,Nowell and Watson as the wingers but Ryan's view point isn't madness IMO.

Look at this way you have two new centres, Barritt who still hasn't played a warm up and Joseph who is still inexperienced.

Having a winger of Ashton's experience wouldn't be bad - has Ashton been given a fair shot with Ford? No he hasn't IMO.

Could Ford use Ashton like Flood did? Quite possibly.

Dean Ryan seems to be a better writer than coach.

I agree with his points about Twelvetrees in particular, if selection isn't based on 20 performance, then why even bother playing him at all against France? It would have been much better to have taken Slade ( assuming that they knew they would pick them by then) and given him the experience of playing away in Paris, not to mention playing alongside Ford.

The arguments could be made for Cipriani and Attwood, if a strong 20 minute cameo isn't going to be enough to secure a spot, then it would have made more sense to get those players who were already in line to get the call to get more game time.

beshocked wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ryan would have picked Ashton over Nowell. Madness.

Think it's a bit harsh to call it madness.

It's quite simple to defend Ryan's view point-

Chris Ashton is the most experienced winger that could have been picked. More caps than all the other wingers in the squad combined.

He was joint top try scorer in the previous RWC.

He scored more tries in the AP and ERCC than Nowell.

He's still got a higher try strike rate than Nowell.

Wasn't particularly exposed defensively.


Now personally I would have picked Ashton,Nowell and Watson as the wingers but Ryan's view point isn't madness IMO.

Look at this way you have two new centres, Barritt who still hasn't played a warm up and Joseph who is still inexperienced.

Having a winger of Ashton's experience wouldn't be bad - has Ashton been given a fair shot with Ford? No he hasn't IMO.

Could Ford use Ashton like Flood did? Quite possibly.

For England Ashton was mediocre at best for a good while despite the fact he was given a very fair crack of the whip and this comes from someone who was calling for him to be given that chance to rediscover his form. calling for him to be given another shot over who has been our best winger in the last 12 months is madness to me.

Maybe playing also rans in some of the warm up games is also a way of keeping first choice injury replacements involved?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ryan would have picked Ashton over Nowell. Madness.

Think it's a bit harsh to call it madness.

It's quite simple to defend Ryan's view point-

Chris Ashton is the most experienced winger that could have been picked. More caps than all the other wingers in the squad combined.

He was joint top try scorer in the previous RWC.

He scored more tries in the AP and ERCC than Nowell.

He's still got a higher try strike rate than Nowell.

Wasn't particularly exposed defensively.


Now personally I would have picked Ashton,Nowell and Watson as the wingers but Ryan's view point isn't madness IMO.

Look at this way you have two new centres, Barritt who still hasn't played a warm up and Joseph who is still inexperienced.

Having a winger of Ashton's experience wouldn't be bad - has Ashton been given a fair shot with Ford? No he hasn't IMO.

Could Ford use Ashton like Flood did? Quite possibly.

For England Ashton was mediocre at best for a good while despite the fact he was given a very fair crack of the whip and this comes from someone who was calling for him to be given that chance to rediscover his form. calling for him to be given another shot over who has been our best winger in the last 12 months is madness to me.

Agreed. Look at comments about 36 in comparison

Dean Ryan says a few things I agree with...however he mentions Attwood as bringing a real power game. That's wrong. We all hoped he would...but he has failed to do that.

Maybe only in the scrums has he shown that...but not really elsewhere.

So we cant fault Lancaster for that selection...he has tried Attwood as we wished...but he failed to bring what we all wanted.

beshocked wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ryan would have picked Ashton over Nowell. Madness.

Think it's a bit harsh to call it madness.

It's quite simple to defend Ryan's view point-

Chris Ashton is the most experienced winger that could have been picked. More caps than all the other wingers in the squad combined.

He was joint top try scorer in the previous RWC.

He scored more tries in the AP and ERCC than Nowell.

He's still got a higher try strike rate than Nowell.

Wasn't particularly exposed defensively.


Now personally I would have picked Ashton,Nowell and Watson as the wingers but Ryan's view point isn't madness IMO.

Look at this way you have two new centres, Barritt who still hasn't played a warm up and Joseph who is still inexperienced.

Having a winger of Ashton's experience wouldn't be bad - has Ashton been given a fair shot with Ford? No he hasn't IMO.

Could Ford use Ashton like Flood did? Quite possibly.

Nope, it's still madness

As is the bit in bold

I agree with his points about Twelvetrees in particular, if selection isn't based on 20 performance, then why even bother playing him at all against France?

Totally agree Bathman.
Similarly Calum Clark. Why play him in a WC warm up game and not just play one of the guaranteed WC squad members.

If he was amazing it may have been a different story though. Suggests that the back row wasn't guaranteed and acknowledges he may be the next cab off the rank.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

I agree with his points about Twelvetrees in particular, if selection isn't based on 20 performance, then why even bother playing him at all against France?

Totally agree Bathman.
Similarly Calum Clark. Why play him in a WC warm up game and not just play one of the guaranteed WC squad members.

Erm, to give them a fair crack at addressing the feedback they'd been given by Lancaster? If they're not going to be given a chance, why have them in the squad at all? It's clear that selection in several positions went right down to the wire with nearly all of the 7 dropped players in contention - at least until the warm-up games.

But should that not have been decided before the 1st warm up game 7.5/ Poofour?

Anyway, its all done now...ill support them passionately...and hope they really take the game to the Group Of Death.

Whens the Ireland game?

hindsight is a wonderful thing innit

GeordieFalcon wrote:But should that not have been decided before the 1st warm up game 7.5/ Poofour?

Anyway, its all done now...ill support them passionately...and hope they really take the game to the Group Of Death.

Whens the Ireland game?

Why should it have been decided that early? Lancaster said right at the start of the camps that the first two warm up games would see everyone in the squad get game time (though Barritt didn't in the end) and that the starting XXIII would lock in for Ireland. Which makes sense to me - you want to give everyone game time, but not to risk them having to go through 3 matches before the RWC proper.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

I agree with his points about Twelvetrees in particular, if selection isn't based on 20 performance, then why even bother playing him at all against France?

Totally agree Bathman.
Similarly Calum Clark. Why play him in a WC warm up game and not just play one of the guaranteed WC squad members.

Reading Faz Senior's comments, it did sound as if performances in training and how players fit into the group were the main considerations. Which makes me think that unless some players scored a hattrick and made a match saving tackle all within 20 minutes then the coaches had already decided. For what its worth, I thought Clark played pretty well against France.

But anyway, I don't think England's success (or not) at the WC will be due to a player or 2 on the fringes of the squad. We can all pretty much guess the 1st choice team and so the key over the next 3 weeks will have to be getting them sharp and match ready.

I just query how Lancaster can still be deciding on taking Calum Clark having never played him in an England game...until 3 weeks before the competition starts in a Warm up game....am I the only one who find that questionable?

But anyway, I don't think England's success (or not) at the WC will be due to a player or 2 on the fringes of the squad.

Again, your right Bathman...it wont.

If he was amazing he may have gone instead of Haskell as it is he was ok and will be cover. Don't think it's that big of a deal tbh.

Interesting how France only picked 36 players for their initial squad and they seem as well prepared as anyone else in the NH. With only 5 players to be dropped maybe the coaches spent more time preparing the players than mulling over a huge number of possible selection permutations?

optimist wrote:

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.

Assuming no major injuries along the way you are probably right about Burgess. On the other hand, depending on Barritt's health, someone may be drafted in sooner rather than later.

sensisball wrote:Interesting how France only picked 36 players for their initial squad and they seem as well prepared as anyone else in the NH. With only 5 players to be dropped maybe the coaches spent more time preparing the players than mulling over a huge number of possible selection permutations?

But PSA didnt have to look at the available players to pick his squad. The voices told him instead

BamBam wrote:

beshocked wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ryan would have picked Ashton over Nowell. Madness.

Think it's a bit harsh to call it madness.

It's quite simple to defend Ryan's view point-

Chris Ashton is the most experienced winger that could have been picked. More caps than all the other wingers in the squad combined.

He was joint top try scorer in the previous RWC.

He scored more tries in the AP and ERCC than Nowell.

He's still got a higher try strike rate than Nowell.

Wasn't particularly exposed defensively.


Now personally I would have picked Ashton,Nowell and Watson as the wingers but Ryan's view point isn't madness IMO.

Look at this way you have two new centres, Barritt who still hasn't played a warm up and Joseph who is still inexperienced.

Having a winger of Ashton's experience wouldn't be bad - has Ashton been given a fair shot with Ford? No he hasn't IMO.

Could Ford use Ashton like Flood did? Quite possibly.

Nope, it's still madness

As is the bit in bold

Talking about his club form. Most players struggle against the ABs, the best side in the world! Savea isn't known as the best winger in the world for nothing.

lostinwales the difference between 36 and Ashton is that 36 has had more recent opportunities in this current England side, Ashton's last opportunity was against the best side in the world away from home. It's unfair to judge his tackling against the ABs to playing the Scottish or Italians for example.

Also Ashton has done more at international level than 36. He still should have some credit in the bank.

You could argue Ashton had more chances, messed more up and still got opportunities.

We have done this to death before. Ashton has worked very well in internationals in his earlier days but he doesn't seem to fit with Lancaster's England. Nowell unquestionably does. May and Watson do with some reservations (depending on what you read) and Roko/ Yarde do with more reservations.

You have every right to think that Ashton is a better player by whatever means you chose to measure him. Without doubt however he doesn't work as well for the current version of England

lostinwales yes you are right but for no 7 & 1/2 to call support of Ashton as madness is a bit far fetched.

If May and Nowell were tearing through opposition then there would be no case for Ashton.

For what it's worth I think Nowell has now pulled ahead of Ashton at international level (perhaps because he suits Lancaster more and has improved) but still don't see May as someone who should be there instead.

As for May the jury is still out on him - opinions are very much mixed on him. I personally think he gets most of his praise because of his pace. There is not a doubt that he's fast but he needs more than that. I want to see him proving why Lancaster has put so much faith in him. A 2nd string French backline is a start but needs to continue.

There are also the question marks on his defence too. People talk about the poor defence of the likes of Wade,Ashton and Yarde but I think May is no better than the rest as shown in the 6 nations.

I didn't say support for Ashton is madness, I said to have Ashton above Nowell is madness. There's a subtle difference here.

Ashton hasn't performed to a high enough standard for England in a while now. He'll have to wait for one of the incumbants to have a bad run before getting another chance.

Its funny, I think the backs are fine...its the forwards that I hope are up to the job.

Ashton was a quality player, more SH type than NH. Had great pace but his tries came through his support lines etc. Lost it a bit on the way and never recovered... perhaps his move to Sarries wasn't a wise one?

Defensive positioning (not heart) was always an issue perhaps from his early career being in league.
Lancaster did give him chances but I think he should have been given a bit more time a few years back.

What is all this 'credit in the bank' buzz-word bollax? Either you are good enough to play or you aren't.

I feel a bit for Ashton as he's never had a chance with the more attacking minded game plan.

He was judged on a time we had Farrell kicking over goals and the wingers only defending. He could fit in really well, his tracking is second to none really.

How May keeps getting chances is beyond me, he's a liability at times.

If anything I'd say Ashton's defensive positioning was fine, he was pathetic in the tackle, would wave attackers by then try and drag them down from behind, and didn't seem to want to put a hit in

May has been up and down but has shown flashes. I think it's pretty fair he gets a chance to show that he can produce this more regularly. Ashton has had chances and hasn't taken them.

As France, England have used so many players over the last couple of year, I think we would have been better off doing what France had done and picking a smaller squad and looking more closely at our first choice 23.

After Burgess played his way into the team against France, Burrell should have effectively been cut from the squad at that stage and, assuming Barritt isn't fit, Burgess should have got another go in Paris. The same with Cipriani, he could have done no more in the second game than he did, so why not stick Slade on the bench for another run-out if Cipriani wasn't getting in the squad?

I think Clark and Twelvetrees were also "wasted" picks, Twelvetrees isn't even first reserve to be in the squad and Clark is only going to be injury cover at best. Morgan needed more time and should have been used in both games (so possibly play Haskell, Wood and Morgan in the first week with Easter on the bench, then go with Haskell/Wood, Robshaw and Vunipola in the second week with Morgan on the bench).

Setting up shoot-outs between Corbisiero/Brookes, Cowan-Dickie/George and Kruis/Attwood was fine, using one on the bench in the first week and one in the second week as we needed to nail these final positions. But the majority of the game time should have been used to get the starting line-up sorted.

BamBam wrote:If anything I'd say Ashton's defensive positioning was fine, he was pathetic in the tackle, would wave attackers by then try and drag them down from behind, and didn't seem to want to put a hit in

Usually by their hair.

robbo277 wrote:As France, England have used so many players over the last couple of year, I think we would have been better off doing what France had done and picking a smaller squad and looking more closely at our first choice 23.

After Burgess played his way into the team against France, Burrell should have effectively been cut from the squad at that stage and, assuming Barritt isn't fit, Burgess should have got another go in Paris. The same with Cipriani, he could have done no more in the second game than he did, so why not stick Slade on the bench for another run-out if Cipriani wasn't getting in the squad?

I think Clark and Twelvetrees were also "wasted" picks, Twelvetrees isn't even first reserve to be in the squad and Clark is only going to be injury cover at best. Morgan needed more time and should have been used in both games (so possibly play Haskell, Wood and Morgan in the first week with Easter on the bench, then go with Haskell/Wood, Robshaw and Vunipola in the second week with Morgan on the bench).

Setting up shoot-outs between Corbisiero/Brookes, Cowan-Dickie/George and Kruis/Attwood was fine, using one on the bench in the first week and one in the second week as we needed to nail these final positions. But the majority of the game time should have been used to get the starting line-up sorted.

I think it does make sense to have the players likely to be called up in case of injury having maximum training time with the team. But players with no chance were didn't need to be there. I think it may have been better to have more of the potential future England players in camp as opposition for the senior players and to gain top level experience. A win-win for all?

fa0019 wrote:Ashton was a quality player, more SH type than NH. Had great pace but his tries came through his support lines etc. Lost it a bit on the way and never recovered... perhaps his move to Sarries wasn't a wise one?

Defensive positioning (not heart) was always an issue perhaps from his early career being in league.
Lancaster did give him chances but I think he should have been given a bit more time a few years back.

Probably the most hated England player since Will Carling or Jeremy Guscott though. Deservedly so too. Although I have always really liked Carling and dont think he deserved the rap he got. Guscott not so much.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Ashton was a quality player, more SH type than NH. Had great pace but his tries came through his support lines etc. Lost it a bit on the way and never recovered... perhaps his move to Sarries wasn't a wise one?

Defensive positioning (not heart) was always an issue perhaps from his early career being in league.
Lancaster did give him chances but I think he should have been given a bit more time a few years back.

Probably the most hated England player since Will Carling or Jeremy Guscott though. Deservedly so too. Although I have always really liked Carling and dont think he deserved the rap he got. Guscott not so much.

Hate? Really? Do you actually hate opposition rugby players? There are plenty of Irish players I'm not big fans of, but I wouldn't say I hated them. Don't think I hate anyone actually.

As a Welsh fan I have to say Lancasters omissions have me breathing a little easier.

Don't get me wrong some of them may be totally justified but some of the names missing now have really proved to be a thorn in wales's side over the years. No doubt England will still be strong but I'm less worried now than I thought I would be about us facing them come WC time. Fingers crossed.

Cyril, dont be so sensitive its just a figure of speech. I dont hate any of those guys but I dont particularly like Ashton anyway.