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)

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

Not sure I agree with that. On form Launchbury adds a physical edge in the forwards (against other forwards as opposed to backs like Lawes). He's also great over the ball and a better carrier/offloader than Lawes.

I like Lawes but to suggest he's our best lock "by far" is wide of the mark

I think that's one of the issues with no genuine world class players. None of our options are far better than their peers. You point to strength in depth but I feel it's more a case of us not producing top draw players.

Think you're being harsh on Launchbury LT.

Artful_Dodger wrote:

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.

OK fine, but where's evidence that Lawes and Launchbury can't go in the lineout together? Last time Parling was a regular starter, in 6N 2013, our lineout was awful, but with Launchbury, Lawes, Wood and Hartley in the team in 2013/2014 it was the strongest in the northern hemisphere.

thomh wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:

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.

OK fine, but where's evidence that Lawes and Launchbury can't go in the lineout together? Last time Parling was a regular starter, in 6N 2013, our lineout was awful, but with Launchbury, Lawes, Wood and Hartley in the team in 2013/2014 it was the strongest in the northern hemisphere.

As some have suggested above. The current lineout woes are partially down to the calls being made (as well as darts from the hooker). In theory at least that is something that Parling can remedy. I didn't say that Launchbury and Lawes CAN'T work well in the lineout. Just that it would be a concern not having an out and out lineout man in Parling there when the lineout is struggling for various reasons.

Seriously. 1 game, everything was bad from the forwards. Still 1 game.

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?

To be clear, by 'us' he meant Ireland.

Someone mentioned Wood above, he brings a better balance all round for me and is far more reliable than Haskell. Some interesting calls to be made. Should be a humdinger of a game with discipline stretched to the hilt.

Scottrf wrote:

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?

To be clear, by 'us' he meant Ireland.

Oh right - didn't realise. Consensus is generally that Launchbury is comfortably our worst lineout lock in the squad so I wouldn't read much into that.

Completely disagree about Dean Ryan, an above average player, but not international class and has failed to generate success for any club he has been involved with. Why should his knowledge of international rugby be any better than his knowledge of club rugby.

Dawson has never managed anyone.

Pundits are paid to give their opinions, if those opinions are not controversial and headline making, they are not asked again and they don't get paid. Guess why they always have controversial opinions!

Beshocked, Morgan is now at around 18.5 stone, if a hefty lock can be lifted, so can Morgan.

The England pack that has held parity or dominated everyone they have played over the last few years (excepting one or two performances) is now lightweight and sub-standard! Get a grip people, we were heavier than France a week and a bit ago. A couple of stone split amongst 8 players does not mean a lot. Lawesbury average around 18 stone each, not lightweight. Marler and Youngs are a bit for their positions I grant you.

Funny thing about Marler, when he was younger, he was heavier and was a rampaging bullock that could give wingers a run for their money, now he has lost weight and got slow?????

SL gambled on France being their usual hapless, cohesive less selves (well for the last coup[le of years) and they weren't. They saw two jumpers and targeted them. The ref let them get away with murder in the set piece, the overhead shots clearly show them deliberately wheeling the scrum, he caught in once.

Lawesbury, Wood with back up from Robshaw has worked very well for England for a few years, no need to panic now. It does show the usefulness of Wood over Haskell.

Lawes calls the line for Saints even when Wood is playing, they have one of the most successful lineouts in the AP so by deduction, Lawes is fine as both a caller and a jumper. Better than fine when you look at the steals he makes and how disruptive he is to the opposition driving maul from the lineout. Parling is no better than Lawes and offers a lot less elsewhere. I would have Kruis on the bench ahead of him at the moment.

If they can't have got the throwing sorted with 10 weeks together, they cannot throw and one of them needs a good kick in the shins to get Hartley back in.

Everyone keeps writing Webber off, based on last seasons form (Beshocked I mean you in particular with your George fixation), he played in the first game and was as good as anybody we have seen to date. George being the automatic number 2 or 16 is far from a given, especially as Webber is the only one to regularly hit his man in the lineout.

RubyGuby wrote:Someone mentioned Wood above, he brings a better balance all round for me and is far more reliable than Haskell. Some interesting calls to be made. Should be a humdinger of a game with discipline stretched to the hilt.

Ruby

The concern with Wood is that, while he's a great lineout option, he doesn't seem to be getting through the work he did circa 2012-2013, hence his replacement with Haskell in the starting lineup. When he first broke through he was so mobile and agressive but that seems to have gone a bit. It's a bit of a lineout/general play trade off with him at the moment.

Incidentally, I was starting to worry. I saw a post from you somewhere else this morning which didn't end with

well-past-it equally does one solid game against a 2nd string french pack make up for a poor club season? Should club form count for so little? Webber can't get past a mediocre hooker like Batty.

It's like when people were praising May and Goode's performances against the 2nd choice French backline. They beat what was in front of them but tougher challenges to come.

Perhaps these players will continue to put in good performances but there is no guarantee.

The team would look very different if we just went on club form.

I'd almost be tempted to give George and Webber a half each, can't see Youngs being dislodged as first choice, but to find out who the next man up is

Unless Youngs has an absolute shocker against Oz or Wales, I think he's going to be the man starting throughout the tournament

I think George could come through during the tournament but Youngs has to start. Think Webber will be or has been pushed down to 3rd choice. I was against him being picked but I think Lancaster has that one right at the moment, not spectatcular but he's been in and around for a while and knows the deal.

Lawesbury average around 18 stone each, not lightweight

Its not so much the weight....my issue is how they use it.

For example Lawes is probably a similar weight to Slater however I would suggest Slater is a far more physical style of player. Like wise im not sure Attwood uses his 19st frame to its best.

Ive called for more muscle in the pack...and that's what I mean. Not extra actual weight...but players who actually use that weight to the max.

I think this pack has a high percentage of players like that at the moment. Ie Wood isn't the most physical player at 6, Marler etc also not huge. Whereas Corbs in his pomp was about 19+ stone and used every kilo of that.

Ultimately England have 1 more "warm up" game to go and they are unsure of their front 3, 2nd rows, back row, half backs, centres and wingers. Thank god for Mike Brown eh! - This team should have been settled a long time ago. They can do it but it would have been easier for confidence and cohesion to have had a settled side by now.

RubyGuby wrote:Ultimately England have 1 more "warm up" game to go and they are unsure of their front 3, 2nd rows, back row, half backs, centres and wingers. Thank god for Mike Brown eh! - This team should have been settled a long time ago. They can do it but it would have been easier for confidence and cohesion to have had a settled side by now.

Fans and (especially) the media may be wildly speculating, but I think Lancaster et al have a pretty good idea of who will be first choice. Whether we agree is another matter!

A fair bit of baby/bathwater and knee-jerk reactions going on as usual. Having a couple of disappointing games doesn't mean you throw everything away.

Even in the centres I'd say (injury-permitting) Lancaster knows the pecking order.

I'd agree completely with that Cyril.

RubyGuby wrote:Ultimately England have 1 more "warm up" game to go and they are unsure of their front 3, 2nd rows, back row, half backs, centres and wingers. Thank god for Mike Brown eh! - This team should have been settled a long time ago. They can do it but it would have been easier for confidence and cohesion to have had a settled side by now.

True to an extent, but probably only one player in each of those areas. Our hooker is in question - not the whole front row, for example. Our wingers are probably Nowell and Watson. Not ideal that we've still got some doubts but you can say it about most teams.

You could say similarly that Wales have uncertainty in front row (lee fit?), second row (Davies good enough to usurp charteris?), back row (which two of warbs, lyds, tips), centres (does roberts/Williams really work) and wings (can you leave out Liam Williams?), but fundamentally I'd say that Wales is one of the most settled sides in the tournament.

The main problem with England is that we were rubbish against France. The same team has performed well and consistently in the past.

If Faletau gets injured for Wales..... Wales are going to be using him as a workhorse - carrying the rest of the team on his broad shoulders - will he be able to cope?

beshocked wrote: If Faletau gets injured for Wales..... Wales are going to be using him as a workhorse - carrying the rest of the team on his broad shoulders - will he be able to cope?

Talk is of playing Warburton at eight and Tipuric at seven for some games...

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote: If Faletau gets injured for Wales..... Wales are going to be using him as a workhorse - carrying the rest of the team on his broad shoulders - will he be able to cope?

Talk is of playing Warburton at eight and Tipuric at seven for some games...

You may remember England tried that with Wood at 8. It was a resounding success.

Poorfour wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote: If Faletau gets injured for Wales..... Wales are going to be using him as a workhorse - carrying the rest of the team on his broad shoulders - will he be able to cope?

Talk is of playing Warburton at eight and Tipuric at seven for some games...

You may remember England tried that with Wood at 8. It was a resounding success.

Warburton and Pocock are very different to Tom Wood...!

maestegmafia wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote: If Faletau gets injured for Wales..... Wales are going to be using him as a workhorse - carrying the rest of the team on his broad shoulders - will he be able to cope?

Talk is of playing Warburton at eight and Tipuric at seven for some games...

You may remember England tried that with Wood at 8. It was a resounding success.

Warburton and Pocock are very different to Tom Wood...!

Well, in the sense that they are both described as "out and out 7s" whereas Wood is a "six and a half". Does the extra half really make all the difference?

It's the ball handling skills that 7s and 8s tend to have that tend to make them more in inter-changeable
compared to a traditional 6 or 6 1/2  Poorfour

RubyGuby wrote:It's the ball handling skills that 7s and 8s tend to have that tend to make them more in inter-changeable
compared to a traditional 6 or 6 1/2  Poorfour

I agree RG

Warburton was converted from eight to seven by the blues. He has pace, strength and good ball handling.

Wood is more of a dark arts kinda player like Richard hill. He does the tough stuff.

beshocked wrote:well-past-it equally does one solid game against a 2nd string french pack make up for a poor club season? Should club form count for so little? Webber can't get past a mediocre hooker like Batty.

It's like when people were praising May and Goode's performances against the 2nd choice French backline. They beat what was in front of them but tougher challenges to come.

Perhaps these players will continue to put in good performances but there is no guarantee.

As you have previously stated, his LAST season form was not good, the season before he was touted as the best 2 in England. This is a new season, club form does not exist.

As you said, you can only beat what is in front of you, the French pack in the first warm up was considered at the time to be a very strong one (not sure they have a weak one), Webber did well, why does he not get any praise for that. George came on against France and did equally well in the loose and scrum against a changed French pack, but was still average in the lineout.

I have no axe to grind against George of any reason to promote Webber, but he has done as well as any other hooker and this deserves to be recognised. His scrummaging is better than any other available hooker.

I would love to see Warbs at 8, I played across the back row at a reasonable level, only the best can make the transition from 7 to 8 at international level (McCaw, Hill for example) he has neither the physique or the skills to play at 8 and like Wood would soon get found out. His handling is OK, but he does not have the grinding ability to make those tight yards that are required these days.

I had the advantage of being 17.5 stone in an era of 16 stone locks, Warbs doesn't.

When we use the word traditional we are often harping back to the amateur era. Open sides were quicker, usually a little smaller and good on the ground. Blind sides could stop a tight five ugly and create some havoc. In the modern game, flankers are far more similar and there's no reason why the skill set should be that different now. I don't buy the 6 1/2 stuff and trendy terminology like "fetcher". No. 8 is still a little different and needs to have the set piece skill, but when it comes to loose forwards - just get your best on the field.

RubyGuby wrote:It's the ball handling skills that 7s and 8s tend to have that tend to make them more in inter-changeable
compared to a traditional 6 or 6 1/2  Poorfour

Wood plays most of his club rugby at 7. He's not Joe Worsley (or Dan Lydiate, for that matter). And, since maesteg raises Richard Hill, would you care to guess his club rugby position?

The trend in English rugby over the last decade or so has been for 6 and 7 to be fairly interchangeable and 8 to be more specialist, though there are some players who can play 6 and 8 (Vunipola, and Easter in his early days) or 6, 7 & 8 (Haskell, Clifford, Kvesic).

Pocock went pretty well at 8 vs the ABs, but their pack had a real offday in the set piece. On another day he might have been exposed.

Lydiiate is a 6 and would not make a 7 or 8 and yes he is a traditional 6 like Tipuric is a traditional 7. Even in the pro era we have traditional players, see Kvesic as an example. Some players are more skilled than others and hence can move around the back row but of course there's a risk to it. With Warburton it remains to be seen but I wouldn't be too pessimistic if we have a very strong tight 5

Succinct article;

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/sam-burgess-makes-the-england-squad-cautious-cumbrian-has-suddenly-entered-highroller-territory-10475699.html

RubyGuby wrote:Lydiiate is a 6 and would not make a 7 or 8 and yes he is a traditional 6 like Tipuric is a traditional 7. Even in the pro era we have traditional players, see Kvesic as an example. Some players are more skilled than others and hence can move around the back row but of course there's a risk to it. With Warburton it remains to be seen but I wouldn't be too pessimistic if we have a very strong tight 5

It's all tosh, though, innit? Kvesic is held out as a "traditional" 7 but has played a decent amount of club rugby at 6 and 8. Wood is a very skillful player and was in his first couple of years held up as the all-rounder heir apparent to Richard Hill. Now he seems to have been relegated to "just a 6". Robshaw was (and sometimes is) widely derided as little more than a workhorse, which ignores the range of skills he actually has.

People see what they want to see.

Players like Kvesic, Warbs, Pocock et al are adaptable it is their skill set that creates their diversity. Steffano Armitage is another English example.

Wouldn't put Tipuric at 6 or 8 though

If I were Welsh I'd be more concerned about the prospect of Warburton having to play the whole tournament than Faletau, given his injury record. I don't know much about James King though.

Wood's hands are just fine - certainly compared to Warburton's, though maybe not Tipuric's. I'd assume Wales will only play Warburton at 8 vs Fiji or Uruguay though, if that's the plan, so not an issue.

OK, maes, but what is it that makes Kvesic, Warbs, Pocock, Armitage et al "adaptable" and other players somehow not?

Wood has somehow become less adaptable in the eyes of the public, Haskell has never been regarded as adaptable, despite having played all three back row positions at international level, and Robshaw isn't even regarded as adaptable enough to play his own position.

Even Joe Worsley, the archetypal modern "tackle it til it stops moving" 6, played 7 at international level. In fact, he's played 7 at a higher level than anyone else mentioned in the thread (albeit that was for about 10 minutes before leaving the field injured. But it was still a RWC final [1])

It's all perception, and the perception is usually based on the flash stuff and not on what players actually contribute.

[1] For the record, he was replaced by (scrum-half-cum-utility-back) Peter Richards, who has also, therefore, played 7 at a higher level than any of these so-called

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

beshocked wrote:well-past-it equally does one solid game against a 2nd string french pack make up for a poor club season? Should club form count for so little? Webber can't get past a mediocre hooker like Batty.

It's like when people were praising May and Goode's performances against the 2nd choice French backline. They beat what was in front of them but tougher challenges to come.

Perhaps these players will continue to put in good performances but there is no guarantee.

As you have previously stated, his LAST season form was not good, the season before he was touted as the best 2 in England. This is a new season, club form does not exist.

As you said, you can only beat what is in front of you, the French pack in the first warm up was considered at the time to be a very strong one (not sure they have a weak one), Webber did well, why does he not get any praise for that. George came on against France and did equally well in the loose and scrum against a changed French pack, but was still average in the lineout.

I have no axe to grind against George of any reason to promote Webber, but he has done as well as any other hooker and this deserves to be recognised. His scrummaging is better than any other available hooker.

I would love to see Warbs at 8, I played across the back row at a reasonable level, only the best can make the transition from 7 to 8 at international level (McCaw, Hill for example) he has neither the physique or the skills to play at 8 and like Wood would soon get found out. His handling is OK, but he does not have the grinding ability to make those tight yards that are required these days.

I had the advantage of being 17.5 stone in an era of 16 stone locks, Warbs doesn't.

Okay maybe calling it a 2nd string French pack is a bit harsh - there were some of their stronger players there. More of a blend.

I just dislike it when players are fast tracked into a side when they have no form to speak of or even that much previous international form (it's not as if Webber has much credit in the bank).

Examples- Lydiate for the Lions in 2013 (still believe he didn't deserve a spot and other players would have done just as good a job if not better) or Farrell vs Munster at Thomond Park when the MOM of the previous week should have been picked.

That's why I am pleased Corbisiero got left out. Felt that Mullan was unlucky.

To be fair to Webber he hasn't let Lancaster down but it does go against what I personally like to see - which is picking players on form, slightly different if players have credit in the bank but I wouldn't say Webber has much IMO. Players like Care and Morgan have credit in the bank hence why they are in the squad.

Club form doesn't exist? What was the squad picked on then?

You think Slade for example would have been picked if it wasn't for his club form?

Webber wasn't deemed good enough to start for his own club. How can you boldly claim his scrummaging is better? I would say that Saracens,Exeter and Leicester all had stronger scrums than Bath last season and the hookers play their part in that. Webber has done very little at international level to warrant being recognised as a superior scrummager.

Beshocked, in what way does Morgan - who hadn't even played in 8 months, much like Lydiate - have credit in the bank that Webber hasn't? Webber at least played in the 6N and played better than any hooker remaining in the squad has so far this summer.

If you were being consistent you should be arguing against Morgan and in favour of Easter on the basis of credit in the bank and form in 2015. I'm not saying that's the right call - if Morgan is fit, he should have the edge (though I am not sure he is fit).

By your own argument, as you've presented it so far, you can't really do anything else and not look like you're picking favourites.

Do you have to be a deity to have credit in the bank and not get bullied...?

Wish I had credit in the bank...id be on a tropical island now...not sat in this bloomin office reading 606 when I should be working.....

This all may not matter. I have a bad feeling that this squad has too many key players coming off significant injury. If I am proved correct, which I certainly hope I am not, then those players who may have just missed out on selection will be playing in the big games. A wee bit of a wing and a prayer, methinks. Unfortunately.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Wish I had credit in the bank...id be on a tropical island now...not sat in this bloomin office reading 606 when I should be working.....

But I have got credit in the bank, so should I have been selected to play in this England squad?

I'm confused, I'm also not a deity either.

Not cut and dried is it. I wouldn't have had Webber in the squad on club form as I thought he'd really struggle. He didn't against France and looked quite solid. Good decision from Lancaster.

Jimpy wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Wish I had credit in the bank...id be on a tropical island now...not sat in this bloomin office reading 606 when I should be working.....

But I have got credit in the bank, so should I have been selected to play in this England squad?

I'm confused, I'm also not a deity either.

Ah I think your a god Jimpy...

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Wish I had credit in the bank...id be on a tropical island now...not sat in this bloomin office reading 606 when I should be working.....

But I have got credit in the bank, so should I have been selected to play in this England squad?

I'm confused, I'm also not a deity either.

Ah I think your a god Jimpy...

Are you taking the mick? How dare you, I've got credit in the bank you know

Just waiting for that phone call from Lancaster, you wont be laughing then.....

Is anyone else getting narked by the constant "it's only two weeks away but England aren't sure who's playing 10/12/4/6 [insert number here]"?

That's what squad selection is about and I would rather see us comparing the merits of two or more close contenders than waiting on the fitness of the only quality option.

Also, memories are short. Compare the side that won in New Zealand in 2003 to the side that won the RWC less than 6 months later:

NZ vs England: J Lewsey; J Robinson, W Greenwood, M Tindall, B Cohen; J Wilkinson, K Bracken; G Rowntree, S Thompson, J Leonard, M Johnson, B Kay, R Hill, N Back, L Dallaglio. Replacements: D West, P Vickery, S Borthwick, J Worsley, A Gomarsall, P Grayson, D Luger.

Aus vs England: J Lewsey, J Robinson, W Greenwood, M Tindall, B Cohen; J Wilkinson, M Dawson; T Woodman, S Thompson, P Vickery; M Johnson; (capt), B Kay; Richard Hill, N Back, L Dallaglio. Replacements: D West, J Leonard, M Corry, L Moody, K Bracken, M Catt, I Balshaw.

Those in italics moved between the bench and the starting XV. Those in bold came into or dropped out of the squad altogether. In the last few months before RWC 2003, England changed 1 starting player completely, swapped 3 between the bench and the starting team and changed 4 bench players. Catt wasn't even in the initial squad.

Having late selection decisions is nothing new - Woodward swapped Catt and Tindall for the France match and then back again for the final. Why is it such a huge deal now? Does Warren Gatland have the media under hypnotic control?

Poorfour wrote:Is anyone else getting narked by the constant "it's only two weeks away but England aren't sure who's playing 10/12/4/6 [insert number here]"?

That's what squad selection is about and I would rather see us comparing the merits of two or more close contenders than waiting on the fitness of the only quality option.

Also, memories are short. Compare the side that won in New Zealand in 2003 to the side that won the RWC less than 6 months later:

NZ vs England: J Lewsey; J Robinson, W Greenwood, M Tindall, B Cohen; J Wilkinson, K Bracken; G Rowntree, S Thompson, J Leonard, M Johnson, B Kay, R Hill, N Back, L Dallaglio. Replacements: D West, P Vickery, S Borthwick, J Worsley, A Gomarsall, P Grayson, D Luger.

Aus vs England: J Lewsey, J Robinson, W Greenwood, M Tindall, B Cohen; J Wilkinson, M Dawson; T Woodman, S Thompson, P Vickery; M Johnson; (capt), B Kay; Richard Hill, N Back, L Dallaglio. Replacements: D West, J Leonard, M Corry, L Moody, K Bracken, M Catt, I Balshaw.

Those in italics moved between the bench and the starting XV. Those in bold came into or dropped out of the squad altogether. In the last few months before RWC 2003, England changed 1 starting player completely, swapped 3 between the bench and the starting team and changed 4 bench players. Catt wasn't even in the initial squad.

Having late selection decisions is nothing new - Woodward swapped Catt and Tindall for the France match and then back again for the final. Why is it such a huge deal now? Does Warren Gatland have the media under hypnotic control?

To be fair, Gatland has said it in his ever dreary pre-tournament mind games and a load of the Welsh supporters have simply jumped on his band wagon...

RubyGuby wrote:Lydiiate is a 6 and would not make a 7 or 8 and yes he is a traditional 6 like Tipuric is a traditional 7. Even in the pro era we have traditional players, see Kvesic as an example. Some players are more skilled than others and hence can move around the back row but of course there's a risk to it. With Warburton it remains to be seen but I wouldn't be too pessimistic if we have a very strong tight 5

Wasn't Lydiate's first Test match start at 8 replacing Ryan Jones and he got MOTM ?

You have a good point Porrf ...although the difference in 2003 of course was you had a good side that winning games but saw opportunities to be even better, now we have one that keeps promising and failing to deliver then riddled with injuries and suspensions leading to a constant confused scatter gun approach to selection.
Thats perhaps why we see more negative press.
Couple that with the need to make stories out of something and fill the 67 pages of the Telegraph they have deicated to rugby without rehashing "Jonnys thoughts on Owen Farrel" yet again.