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)

Welshmushroom wrote: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.

I agree, Slade is a cracking player and will challenge is for sure, so is Cipriani and his omission is good for Wales and Australia

maestegmafia wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote: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.

I agree, Slade is a cracking player and will challenge is for sure, so is Cipriani and his omission is good for Wales and Australia

But where would you play Cips? He is a cracking player no doubt but so are his immediate competition

Ill praise Lancaster for Slades selection. He's a cracker.

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

Youve changed your tune.

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

It's not that straightforward.

If the team was picked on current form then the likes of Morgan,Barritt,Launchbury and Care wouldn't be there.

All are in based on what they have done in the past.

Barritt has had an injury hit season, so has Morgan. Care has just been a shadow of the 2014 6 nations player. Launchbury has come back from a long term injury.



maestegmafia You fear Cipriani? That's ridiculous.

"maestegmafia You fear Cipriani? That's ridiculous."

Maybe he has seen Danny on a big night out in Cardiff?

hugehandoff wrote:"maestegmafia You fear Cipriani? That's ridiculous."

Maybe he has seen Danny on a big night out in Cardiff?

Maybe he's a bus. Or a supermodel.

Kelly Brook isn't a supermodel.

If the only omission that opposition fans are glad about is Cipriani, we should probably be happier with the squad ourselves

beshocked wrote:

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

It's not that straightforward.

If the team was picked on current form then the likes of Morgan,Barritt,Launchbury and Care wouldn't be there.

All are in based on what they have done in the past.

Barritt has had an injury hit season, so has Morgan. Care has just been a shadow of the 2014 6 nations player. Launchbury has come back from a long term injury.



maestegmafia You fear Cipriani? That's ridiculous.

All are in because of their most recent England performances though.

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote: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.

I agree, Slade is a cracking player and will challenge is for sure, so is Cipriani and his omission is good for Wales and Australia

But where would you play Cips? He is a cracking player no doubt but so are his immediate competition

I agree with SCW on this, he was saying how Lancaster should have given him a shot at fly half.

He has better attacking vision than Ford or Farrell.

yeah right

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote: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.

I agree, Slade is a cracking player and will challenge is for sure, so is Cipriani and his omission is good for Wales and Australia

But where would you play Cips? He is a cracking player no doubt but so are his immediate competition

I agree with SCW on this, he was saying how Lancaster should have given him a shot at fly half.

He has better attacking vision than Ford or Farrell.

Not better than Ford, no way. Better than Farrell, yes, but Farrell has other qualities that Cipriani doesn't have.

Ford and Farrell have each played at 10 in wins over both Wales and Australia. I'm worried about our group, but not because of those two.

Exiledinborders wrote: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.

I think before the warm ups SL intended to pick Burrell and Burgess, but Slade gave us another dimension and actually forced his way in. This then forced SL to pick between Burrell and Burgess. The coaches put the pressure on Burrell and obviously didn't think he quite had done enough.

And Cipriani is a key reserve. There's nothing wrong with wanting to take a look at him in a match situation to confirm their view that he would be called up if there are injuries at FH or FB.

thomh wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

But where would you play Cips? He is a cracking player no doubt but so are his immediate competition

I agree with SCW on this, he was saying how Lancaster should have given him a shot at fly half.

He has better attacking vision than Ford or Farrell.

Not better than Ford, no way. Better than Farrell, yes, but Farrell has other qualities that Cipriani doesn't have.

Ford and Farrell have each played at 10 in wins over both Wales and Australia. I'm worried about our group, but not because of those two.

I'd have gone with Cipriani over Ford, but that would have been an enormous call for SL and I'm not surprised he didn't do it. Like McGeechan I'm not totally convinced by Ford (despite his obvious gifts) but we'll see how he goes.

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



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."


.....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.

What's that, 3 changes from the SL squad?

I think SL has done a good job selecting the best available players and has built a squad not just for this WC but for well beyond.. There will always be players we disagree with in a squad like that, and it's a shame the WC isn't even a year later (the centres for instance are very inexperienced, but I don' think it realistic to have picked Burgess or Slade in the 6 Nations - they weren't ready) but actually it's a remarkably uncontentious squad given how many EQed players there are.

As I said elsewhere, SL has actually picked a large proportion of the 2019 squad at the same time as the 2015 squad. I could imagine Marler, Youngs, Cole, Lawes, Launchbury, Robshaw, Vunipola, Youngs, Ford, May, Slade, Joseph, Watson and Nowell featuring in a starting line up in both 2015 and 2019, not to mention M Vunipola, Brookes, Kruis, Care, Farrell. That's just a number 6 for the starting line up, and a hooker, backrow and utility back to find for the bench and we've a matchday XXIII for 2019 (I suggest Burgess, LCD, Clifford and Marchant). SL can put his feet up.......

Seriously, that's actually pretty remarkable.

Dean Ryan and Matt Dawson need to shut the F up. Constant carping from those people is really irritating. They should get behind the team.

englandglory4ever wrote:Dean Ryan and Matt Dawson need to shut the F up. Constant carping from those people is really irritating. They should get behind the team.

Are you saying that no one should be critical of their own team?

Considering how poor England were until the French emptied their bench last week, I would say that criticism is more than justified.

Interesting to see Francis saying hes bitter about not being selected at England schools level as he didnt fit in. Not sure he would have been in with a realistic shot with England in the near future but would have preferred he didnt have a Welsh granny.

Well he went to two posh (for Cumbria and Yorkshire) public schools so ..........

On a more practical level the England age group selectors look at performances in county games and County selectors are very parochial. Then moving from a school in cumbria to one in Yorkshire would not have helped.

maestegmafia wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Dean Ryan and Matt Dawson need to shut the F up. Constant carping from those people is really irritating. They should get behind the team.

Are you saying that no one should be critical of their own team?

Considering how poor England were until the French emptied their bench last week, I would say that criticism is more than justified.

Never miss a chance to have a sly little dig at england huh.

I think englandglory4ever just doesn't like that those two have criticised Burgess' inclusion. Nothing to do with performance generally.

thomh wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Dean Ryan and Matt Dawson need to shut the F up. Constant carping from those people is really irritating. They should get behind the team.

Are you saying that no one should be critical of their own team?

Considering how poor England were until the French emptied their bench last week, I would say that criticism is more than justified.

Never miss a chance to have a sly little dig at england huh.

I think englandglory4ever just doesn't like that those two have criticised Burgess' inclusion. Nothing to do with performance generally.

TomH

There is nothing sly about my comment. And I can't see how it is a dig at England?

I vermemtly disagree with EG4E's point that Ryan and Dawson should not criticise selection. Both are experienced pundits many of us fans have a great respect for Ryan in particular.

But your comment had nothing to do with selection..? EG4E was upset about Ryan and Dawson's disagreement with Burgess' inclusion, but you jumped in with a comment about how poorly england played at the weekend - which is a completely different issue. Slightly came across like just using any old excuse to drop into conversatuon that england played badly.

Anyway apologies if I offended. No point having an argument about nothing.

Agree with you on Ryan and Dawson. Pundits are paid to give their views, not just be prominent fans.

thomh wrote:But your comment had nothing to do with selection..? EG4E was upset about Ryan and Dawson's disagreement with Burgess' inclusion, but you jumped in with a comment about how poorly england played at the weekend - which is a completely different issue. Slightly came across like just using any old excuse to drop into conversatuon that england played badly.

Anyway apologies if I offended. No point having an argument about nothing.

In the context of the discussion regarding Ryan and Dawsons comments I think England's poor performance in Paris was incredibly relevant, more so that England reduced the deficit and almost snuck a win at the end with the players who performed well that are now ommited from the squad.

It's a funny old thing. Early birds are generally seen as being 'better' and more 'efficient' people than night owls even if they get the same amount of stuff done.

Why should a side finishing a game strongly be down simply to the other side 'taking their foot off the gas' or it not really counting because substitutions have been made? Also, while we can attribute some of the change in dominance to the likes of Easter and Attwood I think the whole side started (far too late) to suddenly go up a gear. It certainly took France by surprise.

Re. the pundits. Some are worth listening to (and England deserved criticism, no doubt). In general though, those who can't, preach. I must stop reading Jones and Barnes. Not good for the blood pressure!

Cyril a raft of substitions can disrupt the flow of a team and momentum - that's normal.

Don't look too much into the fightback in France - don't paper over the cracks. The end score flattered England.

Most of the media hype has surrounded the inclusion of Burgess and the exclusion of Cipriani but those are minor selections.

Burrell vs Burgess - you either pick the centre who had a poor 6 nations at 12 or the inexperienced but talented RL player. It's a gamble but Burrell hasn't taken his chances in the 12 shirt.

I found it funny that Barnes and S.Jones were saying the Times that Cipriani should have been picked - what they never suggested is whose spot he takes. It wouldn't have been Goode because both wanted him in their first XVs so that leaves Ford,Farrell or Slade....

The biggest worries are still hooker and the breakdown - Lancaster missed an opportunity to try out new options in the backrow who could have made a difference. As for hooker have to hope Youngs,George and Webber can sort the lineout out.

Lancaster's U turn on George has been a plus at least - from not even seen as good enough for the 50 squad to make the 31 is very good indeed.

Jamie George needs to start against Ireland. Wales took a gamble on Francis, England need to do the same with George. He's bigger and stronger than Youngs, faster than Webber,makes more tackles than either, could be just who England are looking for.

He's the replacement for Hartley England have been looking for IMO.

The problem with George is his throwing isn't that great either. He's another good option around the park but his darts are prone to go off mark.

England, in particular, have a development problem with hooker and exceeds even that of IC IMO. At least our mediocre IC have mainly been down to lack of test-level ability and occasionally injury. The hooker issue seems unforgivable to me.

The hooker’s job back in the day used to be (in order of importance):
1. hook the ball in the scrum (the clue's in the name)
2. throw the ball accurately in the LO
3. stabilize the FR effort in the scrum
4. put yourself about in the loose in a manner somewhere between a prop and a flanker

Nowadays hooking the ball is a bit of an irrelevance and the FR effort is largely left to the props. Unfortunately in England the LO part of the job description seems not to warrant much training or development either, despite the importance being obvious. But why – surely controlling your own ball in set-pieces is vital to winning games? I genuinely cannot see how you can claim to be a test-level hooker if you can’t throw the ball accurately (hence LCD should never have been considered). I mean, you wouldn’t use a FH who couldn’t pass, would you?

Sgt Pooly well no it's not great but he's not exactly had an opportunity to build partnerships at international level. A lineout is about the thrower and the jumpers. The more options the better. Plus George is one of the more reliable ones (I guess that shows the lack of quality hookers!).

Very true Barney mcgrew it but even Steve Thompson wasn't exactly famed as a proficient lineout thrower.

Is the pack really just about the props? You don't feel more secure having Hartley in the frontrow than T.Youngs? A heavier 2nd row rather than a lightweight one?

Not sure what Lancaster's plan is with Webber - it's strange that someone barely features for his club as a starter (Batty isn't exactly a top hooker) is rated so highly.

I can see your point Beshocked that he's failed to build Int relationships but I was pointing towards the AP.

I'd say Youngs was a better thrower at AP level than George which is worrying.

Sgt Pooly yes but it's a different set up at Tigers. Tigers have a good lineout and T.Youngs is comfortable with those players. You could argue that Lancaster should have looked at one of them if he was going to put all his attention on T.Youngs

Saracens are still haven't found a way to replace the lineout maestro - Borthwick.

Kruis,Hamilton,Itoje and Hargreaves - not famed lineout jumpers. Hopefully Kruis and Itoje in particular will improve.

Think you might be rating George's throwing a little higher if he had more starts with Borthwick running the lineout.

Hartley has been helped at international level by having familiar club men Lawes and Wood.

Could go with T.Youngs at hooker and Parling in the 2nd row but might leave us a bit lightweight in the front five.

I'm not so sure, I remember George struggling with Borthwick at the club but that was obviously a while back.

I like George a lot and would take him over Youngs if he can throw 100%

but might leave us a bit lightweight in the front five

The whole pack is lightweight bar number 8.

Talking about wanting a hooker can throw I also want a 2nd row who can run the lineout!

Launchbury and Lawes aren't famed as lineout technicians are they? Sounds like those responsibilities will fall on Wood's shoulders.

Obviously England don't have a 8 option at the lineout - imagine trying to lift Billy or Morgan!

This doesn't help.

Are there any decent 8s who can potentially do this that could be looked at after the world cup?

I'd give the forwards some slack they've looked a very good pack for a while 1 performance doesn't neccessarily change that.

The obvious 8 is Beumont for a lineout option though he looked very ropey in the Saxons match.

Beaumont if he continues to improve Beshocked?

Don't worry...Itoje can jump at 6, and Burgess will learn with Bath. Lawes runs the lineout well enough ....just need to hit the jumpers with the ball....

Is Hughes a lineout guy? Beaumont is a long way off being good enough, and we'd need some extra carrying power elsewhere

beshocked wrote:Talking about wanting a hooker can throw I also want a 2nd row who can run the lineout!

Launchbury and Lawes aren't famed as lineout technicians are they? Sounds like those responsibilities will fall on Wood's shoulders.

Obviously England don't have a 8 option at the lineout - imagine trying to lift Billy or Morgan!

This doesn't help.

Are there any decent 8s who can potentially do this that could be looked at after the world cup?

4. Launchbury 5. Parling 19. Lawes

You've got a great all rounder at 4 who really excels in the loose. A strong lineout technician and captain making the calls at 5 and a mammoth impact sub to come off the bench in Lawes. I don't think Launchbury and Lawes compliment each other in the way that either one of them goes well with Parling.

I disagree. Lawes and Launbury went excellently together in autumn 2013 and 6N 2014. What do you think Parling adds outside the lineout that either of those don't? Meanwhile Parling and Launchbury played together in 6N 2013 when, despite winning the first four games, our set-piece, both scrum and lineout, was dodgy as hell for the whole tournament.

I can't see how anyone could advocate Lawes not starting after the way he's performed for two years.

Lawes is our best lock forward by far. Doies everything Launchbury can and is a lineout option.

The logic is this, if you are struggling at lineout time because of the option at hooker, surely you want your best lineout technician starting?

LondonTiger - Launchbury isn't exactly a poor lineout option when. When England beat Ireland in 2014 Launchbury and Lawes both started and it was Launchbury who caused us real problems in the lineout.

I'd agree with you Dodger, but for some reason Launchbury just isn't used enough in the lineout by England, no idea why

beshocked wrote:Talking about wanting a hooker can throw I also want a 2nd row who can run the lineout!

Launchbury and Lawes aren't famed as lineout technicians are they? Sounds like those responsibilities will fall on Wood's shoulders.

Obviously England don't have a 8 option at the lineout - imagine trying to lift Billy or Morgan!

This doesn't help.

Are there any decent 8s who can potentially do this that could be looked at after the world cup?

England did have an 8 option at the lineout but decided to take Morgan instead. The issue with the lineout seems to be in the combination of caller and jumper. Lawes isn't a primary caller, but worked well with Hartley because of familiarity. Ditto Youngs and Parling. Youngs and Lawes isn't a great combo.

After the world cup, I think it's unlikely they will look at anyone else at 8 in the short term. Billy and Ben are both still very young and offer a lot around the part - but that then pushes them towards having a jumper at 6 and it's not clear who is a good option.

LondonTiger wrote:Lawes is our best lock forward by far. Doies everything Launchbury can and is a lineout option.

Not sure about that. I think Launchbury is better in most areas...but Lawes is the lineout man that Lancaster needs.

Artful_Dodger wrote:The logic is this, if you are struggling at lineout time because of the option at hooker, surely you want your best lineout technician starting?

LondonTiger - Launchbury isn't exactly a poor lineout option when.  When England beat Ireland in 2014 Launchbury and Lawes both started and it was Launchbury who caused us real problems in the lineout.

Yes I understand that, but you talked about partnership as if there was more to it than just the lineout capability.

If it was Launchbury causing us lineout problems then why did you advocate him starting over Lawes?

I'd agree with those saying Lawes is our best lock by far. I'd start Lawes and Launchbury and, if that compromises the lineout, bring Wood in.

Artful_Dodger wrote:The logic is this, if you are struggling at lineout time because of the option at hooker, surely you want your best lineout technician starting?

LondonTiger - Launchbury isn't exactly a poor lineout option when.  When England beat Ireland in 2014 Launchbury and Lawes both started and it was Launchbury who caused us real problems in the lineout.

England do not use Launchbury in the lineout on our throw (last time I looked he was averaging under one lineout per match), and he makes about one steal every two seasons.

thomh wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:The logic is this, if you are struggling at lineout time because of the option at hooker, surely you want your best lineout technician starting?

LondonTiger - Launchbury isn't exactly a poor lineout option when.  When England beat Ireland in 2014 Launchbury and Lawes both started and it was Launchbury who caused us real problems in the lineout.

Yes I understand that, but you talked about partnership as if there was more to it than just the lineout capability.

If it was Launchbury causing us lineout problems then why did you advocate him starting over Lawes?

...because the issue we were discussing (going back to beshocked's post which I quoted) was the lineout. Launchbury and Parling starting with Lawes on the bench is in my opinion the best setup for the lineout and all round. For me starting Lawes and Launchbury when there are big question marks over the options at hooker in the lineout is pretty dodgey. Parling is the best lineout option at lock and between Launchbury and Lawes at 4 I would start Launchbury and use Lawes as an impact sub. Anyway....just my opinion.