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)

Id also add that Wales dont have the same selection dilemas (OMG THEY DIDNT PICK ASSCOMBE!) because they have pretty much ran out of fit players. Having a big player pool makes selections harder, and chopping and changing easier.

Maybe we could go back to 2011 and spend some time congratulating Martin Johnson for blindly sticking by his favourite old boys again.

But Gooseberry, one man's "confused scattergun approach to selection" is another's "being overly consistent and picking players on 'credit in the bank'".

From what I can see, Lancaster's been very consistent in his selections, despite injuries. There's a clear template for a mobile pack with everyone responsible for defence and the breakdown, and Hartley's ongoing indiscretions, Corbs' injury and the emergence of Kruis aside you could have written that pack down in 2013.

In the backs, the template has consistently been for a back three who are comfortable at fullback, the form halfback pairing (plus Wigglesworth for consistent kicking). It's only at centre that things have been inconsistent and then only because the players picked keep losing form or getting injured (or convicted).

Barritt when fit has been part of the squad through the entire cycle. Joseph was a later addition but has taken his chance and been rewarded. The only real surprise is that Burgess and Slade were deemed to have shown enough potential to override Twelvetrees and Burrell's credit in the bank.

I don't see anything confused or scattergun in that. Lancaster's tried to stick with a consistent squad to build their experience (he's used the second lowest number of players of any national coach bar Steve Hansen), and when he hasn't been able to do that he's tried new players. When they've done well, they've stayed with the squad, when they haven't outshone the previous incumbent, they haven't.

What specific scattergun tactics are you thinking of?

Jimpy why can't you ever add any relevant or intelligent points to the conversation?

Your only comments are petty little jibes - not constructive. Not even witty.

Poorfour there is a significant difference between Morgan and Webber, also Morgan and Easter.

Morgan has been consistently good at international level for England when picked, couldn't say the same of Easter or Webber. Morgan has been picked because of what he's done in the past. Also there aren't that many other options - there's Billy and a 37 year old whose too slow and also didn't cover himself in glory in the 2011 RWC but after that the drop off in experience is significant.

Not all of Easter's previous form and attitude counts in his favour because of course he was the player who said - 35k down the toilet plus I've always felt he was a stop gap for better no 8s - Morgan and Billy. Great club player but mediocre at international level IMO.

Which game did Webber play in the 6 nations? Thought it was the Hartley/Youngs combo.

Webber is really not that experienced - how many starts has he had? Plus when have you said - Webber has made a real contribution to England wins.

Morgan has been instrumental in many England victories. He's been picked on reputation.

Webber in comparison hasn't done nearly as much as Morgan.

England could have perhaps tried Ewers in the warm ups if they wanted another option at 6/8 but decided that they didn't want any more backrow options. Just sticking with the usual suspects.

Thanks Beshocked, its better coming from you

RubyGuby wrote:Thanks Beshocked, its better coming from  you

You mean that having credit in the bank isn't good enough for you?

beshocked wrote:Jimpy why can't you ever add any relevant or intelligent points to the conversation?

Your only comments are petty little jibes - not constructive. Not even witty.

Poorfour there is a significant difference between Morgan and Webber, also Morgan and Easter.

Morgan has been consistently good at international level for England when picked, couldn't say the same of Easter or Webber.  Morgan has been picked because of what he's done in the past. Also there aren't that many other options - there's Billy and a 37 year old whose too slow and also didn't cover himself in glory in the 2011 RWC but after that the drop off in experience is significant.

Not all of Easter's previous form and attitude counts in his favour because of course he was the player who said - 35k down the toilet plus I've always felt he was a stop gap for better no 8s - Morgan and Billy. Great club player but mediocre at international level IMO.

Which game did Webber play in the 6 nations? Thought it was the Hartley/Youngs combo.

Webber is really not that experienced - how many starts has he had? Plus when have you said - Webber has made a real contribution to England wins.

Morgan has been instrumental in many England victories. He's been picked on reputation.

Webber in comparison hasn't done nearly as much as Morgan.

England could have perhaps tried Ewers in the warm ups if they wanted another option at 6/8 but decided that they didn't want any more backrow options. Just sticking with the usual suspects.

Ah....diddums. Ever hear of the  pot calling the kettle black?

At least you have me on one thing - you aspire to be a wit - and you're half way there  

Much of my comment is constructive and has been known to be witty (honest it has) - but (and i'll be honest with you) I do enjoy a chuckle at your expense. It's far too easy given your own attitude and manner. Saying things repeatedly doesn't make them true you know. Have a good look at yourself, before you criticise others. It is funny though, plenty of others, even on this thread appear to have taken the same approach with you that I have. But I see you've chosen to ignore that - and in my long (ish) experience on here, that seems to be a common theme. I can only assume that since you have singled me out, you are secretly admiring me. I'm not flattered....

Stay away from the clichés, we'll get on fine.

Jimpy I discuss rugby, you don't though you have managed to successfully drag me off the topic so bravo to you.

Why should I stay away from words if I think they fit what I believe?

It's easier to describe previous form/reputation at international level as credit in the bank. If you can't understand the relevance well I can't help you. Instead you prefer to criticise.

As for the comment about deities - well all of us know about the English media and how they build up and hype up players - two players have dominated the media coverage - Burgess and Cipriani.

Actually I single out because you don't really contribute anything constructive to the discussion. Plus you disagree for the sake of disagreement.

Others I disagree with but at least they answer with comments relevant to the game of rugby.

I believe you do have some rugby knowledge but most of the time prefer to be disruptive than constructive.

beshocked wrote:Jimpy I discuss rugby, you don't though you have managed to successfully drag me off the topic so bravo to you.

Why should I stay away from words if I think they fit what I believe?

It's easier to describe previous form/reputation at international level as credit in the bank. If you can't understand the relevance well I can't help you. Instead you prefer to criticise.

As for the comment about deities - well all of us know about the English media and how they build up and hype up players - two players have dominated the media coverage - Burgess and Cipriani.

Actually I single out because you don't really contribute anything constructive to the discussion. Plus you disagree for the sake of disagreement.

Others I disagree with but at least they answer with comments relevant to the game of rugby.

I believe you do have some rugby knowledge but most of the time prefer to be disruptive than constructive.

I rest my case...

Now, on with the rugby.

I thought it was a bit the other way for Burgess now some nice underplaying from a lot of the media. Even Mr Bath Guscott has it won't really affect anything. I'm excited about Slade, pity he's not on the bench this week. Anyone heard on how fit Barritt is?

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Jimpy I discuss rugby, you don't though you have managed to successfully drag me off the topic so bravo to you.

Why should I stay away from words if I think they fit what I believe?

It's easier to describe previous form/reputation at international level as credit in the bank. If you can't understand the relevance well I can't help you. Instead you prefer to criticise.

As for the comment about deities - well all of us know about the English media and how they build up and hype up players - two players have dominated the media coverage - Burgess and Cipriani.

Actually I single out because you don't really contribute anything constructive to the discussion. Plus you disagree for the sake of disagreement.

Others I disagree with but at least they answer with comments relevant to the game of rugby.

I believe you do have some rugby knowledge but most of the time prefer to be disruptive than constructive.

I rest my case...

Now, on with the rugby.

Would make a change if you talked about rugby.

Shame you had to drag me down to your level. I shouldn't respond to a WUM/troll like you but you're good at it.

no 7 & 1/2 Burgess has been plastered all over the papers - most of the squad discussion has revolved around Burgess' inclusion. Slade's inclusion has been more low key. Opinion seems to be divided on Burgess whilst with Slade there's not much controversy - he played well throughout the season and covers 3 positions so he's in.

Barritt should be fit. Will be interesting to see If Ford-Barritt-Joseph will be good enough.

Oh yes a lot of coverage on Burgess just not seen much saying he's going to be great to be honest.

Still think we're best off going with more a ball player somewhere though. Ford's going to be under a bit of pressure unless Barritt ups that part of his game.

Why can't Barritt kick from hand? Did he not used to be a fly half long ago? Can someone not teach him to kick? How hard can it be for a pro player to learn to kick the ball well from hand? It would take a lot of pressure off Ford.

I'm not picking on Barritt, same applies to Roberts or practically any other centre that doesn't kick. Robinson learnt to kick pretty well when he transitioned from league.

Roberts can kick, he started his career as a full back, he's just used to boshing it up and playing to his strengths

Didnt realise this but its actually 2 and a half years since Barritt started at 12 for England, and hes only started 4 tests since then.

Its funny how we have this impression hes been an ever present favourite at 12 and long term established squad/team member ...but hes only got 22 caps half of which came in 2012.

I seem to be suffering form the circular Barritt issue.. start of thinking hes inadequate, gradually accept hes the right (only) option, then go back to questioning if he really is even the things we think he is make him the safe/sensible choice and also remembering his limitations.

I gues szthough when it comes down to it the 12's have been chosen to protect Ford and Jospeh and make sure theres someone who can handle the big runners in midfield and shake up the fancy boys with some meaty hits. Maybe its somewhat negative, but the flip side is seeing Barritt/Burgess as options who allow the luxury players ( Ford and Joseph) to be selected to grab all the headlines with ball in hand.

Ruby, we just rarely see him do it I guess. Fair enough though, perhaps a poor example but there are plenty of others, Bastreneud for example.

Is it just that these guys are told not to kick the ball or are they just not good enough at it?

That is true, I definitely remember him being looked at as a 10/12 when in South Africa, wonder if any of the SA lads could chip in here

If its just about kicking, I have no idea why Brown isn't used more as a clearing option when we are stuck in our 22, he has a monster boot but only seems to use it when isolated after collecting a kick

I agree it seems strange that some pro players can't kick well and I'd even put Nonu and Conrad Smith in that bracket. It's just a skill that hasn't been developed possibly as a consequence of some players developing more physically from a young age and being encouraged to take the ball up more rather than develop skills that are not innate. Its interesting this but its not uncommon. Ray Gravelle couldn't kick a ball, but then again I don't think he ever wanted to.

Not sure Roberts is a bad example. He is able to kick the ball, but kicking from full back is so very different than from first or second receiver. At FB you usually have some time and the kicking option is a simple one to make. At 10 or 12 you have to make the decisions in a blink of an eye then execute under pressure. That is when mistakes are made.

It is no coincidence that the players who are asked to play a basic game (be it Barritt, Roberts, JDV, Nonu) make less mistakes, while those who are asked to play a more rounded game tend to make errors.

Bam Bam, good point about Brown. On reflection, it's not all about kicking either I guess, if Barritt used to play 10 for the sharks (wikipedia says he did) then surely he could be utilised more as a play maker too.

I guess what I'm basically asking (regarding Barritt in particular) is "is Barritt limited by his own skill set or by how the coaches ask him to play?"

no 7 & 1/2 surely Ford should be able to handle pressure? He's a professional rugby player after all - if not then someone else should take his place.

Personally I think Barritt will take pressure off Ford in some matters like defence. Yes he will make things harder in attack but having Barritt there in defence should make up for it.

Barritt has his weaknesses but he's a leader. I think he'll also help the forwards. People say Burgess is more like a 6, Barritt is the England centre most like a flanker other than Burgess.

Others have said it but I believe that Burgess is basically the replacement for Barritt -he's there to fill a similar role - flanker-esque, strong defence, help with leadership. The difference being that Burgess is a more attacking player but still more raw and less experienced than Barritt. Will inevitably have less awareness.

screamingaddabs I believe Barritt could kick from hand if he made it part of his game, it's just not a part of his game that he's focussed on since he came to the UK.

Only one moment but Barritt did a brilliant grubber kick against Bath last year away from home which led to a try.

Surely it's like most things - if you don't practise it a lot then you won't be very good. Would like it if Barritt added a consistent boot to his repetoitre but at Saracens he's not been encouraged to - surprising for a team that has been notorious for putting boot to ball.

Every player has a role - Barritt hasn't added kicking to his. Must be a reason for this - I don't think it's because Barritt is unable to kick.

I don't think Jamie Roberts lack of a boot makes him a less formidable player.

LondonTiger wrote:Not sure Roberts is a bad example. He is able to kick the ball, but kicking from full back is so very different than from first or second receiver. At FB you usually have some time and the kicking option is a simple one to make. At 10 or 12 you have to make the decisions in a blink of an eye then execute under pressure. That is when mistakes are made.

It is no coincidence that the players who are asked to play a basic game (be it Barritt, Roberts, JDV, Nonu) make less mistakes, while those who are asked to play a more rounded game tend to make errors.

Good point.  So is Barritt just being asked to play in a limited way?  Could he be less limited if asked?  Surely Beshocked (or another Saracens fan) should have some insight on this?

Edit: Just seen that Beshocked has replied already!

Pressure can do strange things to people beshocked so you never know, I think it just creates more opportunity for the opposition to target him. Have a second playmaker in the team and suddenly the defence has to ask tougher questions on themselves. Can Barritt provide this and ask questions, will he be there to fix there to run and hold people, making us a bit more telegraphed? Will he improve the defence much? I'm not sure, both Ford and Joseph have been fine, much has been made of Barritts defensive organisation which has been absent on some notable occasions but he's a big step up from Eastmond.

If Barritt is now viewed as a neccesity for this team, I'm thinking maybe Barritt and Slade seem a more balanced partnership for the team. Would mean dropping the excellent Joseph but may add more overall?

screamingaddabs I believe that Barritt is more skilled than let's say Bastareaud who only boshes for example but he plays the way he does because he's been coached that way.

Brendan Venter when he took over Saracens in 2009-10 wanted them to play in a specific way. Barritt was there to play a particular role and has ever since taken the same role.

The thing about Barritt is that he's never really shone in any game but it's noticeable when he's not there. Saracens have won more games with him in the team then without him.

Barritt is different to most centres. He's not got the attacking battering ram abilities of a Bastareaud,Nonu or Roberts, the speed and skill of Fofana,Joseph, not a playmaker either.

He's not a X factor player, mentally very strong though, good leadership skills, a rock in defence who can stop any centre, also someone who can help the forwards out. I think he's a forwards best friend personally. Plus he's reliable.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 surely Ford should be able to handle pressure? He's a professional rugby player after all - if not then someone else should take his place.

Personally I think Barritt will take pressure off Ford in some matters like defence. Yes he will make things harder in attack but having Barritt there in defence should make up for it.

Barritt has his weaknesses but he's a leader. I think he'll also help the forwards. People say Burgess is more like a 6, Barritt is the England centre most like a flanker other than Burgess.

Others have said it but I believe that Burgess is basically the replacement for Barritt -he's there to fill a similar role - flanker-esque, strong defence, help with leadership. The difference being that Burgess is a more attacking player but still more raw and less experienced than Barritt. Will inevitably have less awareness.

screamingaddabs I believe Barritt could kick from hand if he made it part of his game, it's just not a part of his game that he's focussed on since he came to the UK.

Only one moment but Barritt did a brilliant grubber kick against Bath last year away from home which led to a try.

Surely it's like most things - if you don't practise it a lot then you won't be very good. Would like it if Barritt added a consistent boot to his repetoitre but at Saracens he's not been encouraged to - surprising for a team that has been notorious for putting boot to ball.

Every player has a role - Barritt hasn't added kicking to his. Must be a reason for this - I don't think it's because Barritt is unable to kick.

I don't think Jamie Roberts lack of a boot makes him a less formidable player.

It sounds like if Barritt was asked then he could (with time practising and training) offer a bit more than loads of tackles and some boshing up the middle. I think 7.5 is right though that Barritt and Slade looks better than Barritt and Joseph. Which is unbelievably harsh on Joseph unfortunately! Sentiment doesn't win rugby matches though does it?

When discussing whether Ford should be able to handle pressure given he is a professional rugby player, lets not forget that even Jonny Wilkinson needed a hand from Mike Catt in 2003 when France had Serge Betsen on the loose

With kicking, an extra option in the centres or back 3 would be nice to have.

Roberts is mentioned as a notable non kicker, but Jonathan Davies and Halfpenny are often used as alternative clearing kickers, so not an issue.

Similarly with JDV and Nonu, SA have Le Roux able to step in at first receiver and clear, NZ had Dagg previously and Ben Smith can also kick

Not convinced a Ford-Barritt-Slade would offer enough going forward though we won't have an opportunity to try it out.

Also I think Joseph was great in the 6 nations.

Could in the future try Ford-Slade-Joseph - probably this world cup is too soon.

Here are our inside centre options:

1. Barritt
2. Burgess
3. Slade (less likely)
4. Farrell (even less likely)

Let's assume that either Barritt or Burgess start.

Kicking:- Brown needs to offer an option for clearance and sometimes in open play, using his giant left boot

Playmaking:- Either our number 9, our number 13, or our number 15 could really do with taking pressure off of 10 (true of any 10).  Joseph and Brown don't do this (they are strike runners).  Youngs or Care could possibly run things more from the base of the rucks?  It's not Wiggies strength (he has many other good qualities though).  Perhaps the best line up would be:

9. Youngs/Care
10. Ford
11. Nowell
12. Barritt
13. a.Slade b.Joseph
14. Watson
15. a.Brown b.Goode

if options a. and b. always line up together?

I'm not sure I've even convinced myself...

It would offer the chance to split the attack keep the opposition guessing, which hopefully creates some space for the wingers. Not sure Barritt or Joseph are or can offer this to the extent of having Slade in the midfield. Ford, Slade Joseph is mouth watering from an attacking point of view and we'll surely see it at some point in the WC. No questions on Slades defence but lacks the big ball carrier we now seem to want. Whats wrong with the forwards carrying hard and the backs offering something a little more jinxy?

Nothing .. but at the moment no one thinks the forwards have enough carriers either!

Who are the big carriers in the pack? (Morgan/Billy aside)

Who can carry well? For me Marler, Vunipola, Youngs, george, Brookes or Wilson, launchbury and Robshaw are all very good carriers. I seem to be well out by myself in this view though.

Haha...I think you might be mate.

Marler has showed very little ability at Int level. Similar with Brookes, Wilson, Launchbury and Robshaw.

Mako is decent but isn't a good scrummager. It's really tough to find that balance, a lock combo of Lawes/Parling is quite worrying.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Who can carry well? For me Marler, Vunipola, Youngs, george, Brookes or Wilson, launchbury and Robshaw are all very good carriers. I seem to be well out by myself in this view though.

there are plenty who can carry, but England choose not to use them. I guess they all have defined roles to play.

This is from the guardian:

The Bath centre Jonathan Joseph, meanwhile, says he has a good feeling about his new England centre partnership with Brad Barritt before Saturday’s final warm-up Test against Ireland at Twickenham. “I feel very confident playing outside of Brad and I feel we can have a good relationship there,” said Joseph, conscious that Lancaster has now picked 13 different midfield starting pairings during his time in charge.

“I’ll play more of a playmaking role where Brad will be more of the hard runner. I see it to be more that sort of relationship, rather than Brad looking to distribute the way Kyle Eastmond does. You have to play to individual players’ strengths. Brad is a very strong ball carrier and a very strong defensive player so I think he’ll stick to that.”

screamingaddabs

If you have Wigglesworth at 9 you strengthen the kicking.

no 7 & 1/2 Slade's weakness is that he's not as strong defensively as Barritt as experienced, doesn't have the same leadership qualities yet either.

I do like the idea of your backline but don't yet think it's ready.

The problem with forwards carrying hard is that they don't always do that. Barritt is a back who I think helps the forwards more than most other backs.

4. Parling
5. Lawes
6. Vuinipola
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

Could be worth a look, although a little late perhaps.

Help me out, what constitutes a good carrier at this level in your eyes?

beshocked, I'd agree that Slade isn't as strong defensively, but I believe Barritt is probably the best defensive centre in the Prem and up there in world rugby, doesn't mean Slade isn't strong there himself. Leadership I'm not so sure, more to do with the player and I don't think he's a shrinking violet and is quite vocal. He'll be a class option off the bench though.

The forwards are the biggest worry at the moment I must admit. We just have to hope it was a blip in the last game and that everything will be rosy from now on...

Most of our pack combinations have worked well at least once in the past. Marler, Youngs, Cole, Parling, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw, Morgan COULD work. They just need to up the performance form the pack last match in my opinion. If this game goes well then I think we will be ok. If it doesn't then we may have to panic slightly

Think Slade would be great off the bench, problem is I can't see him dislodging Farrell, and it seems to be a bit of a waste having 2 players who can cover 10 and 12 (although Slade also plays 13), more likely to see May or Goode on the bench i'd guess

Hard to say no 7 & 1/2 though I guess it's players who consistently get over the gain line/ players who tie in defenders.

Do most England players do that?

I wouldn't call Robshaw or Launchbury good ball carriers personally. Certainly not at the same level as the Vunipola bros and Morgan IMO.

Obviously some players have more carries than others. For England - the no 8 has been doing most of that. Haskell is a good ball carrier when given the responsibility.

no 7 & 1/2 don't get me wrong. I think Slade offers a lot but as of now he's unproven defensively at international level - with a bit more experience he could well be the long term solution at 12. Not even saying I think he's a bad defender but wouldn't want him to test his defence vs Roberts personally - not in an inexperienced England backline where positioning will be important as much as technique.

He is unproven defensively at international level; in fact he's unproven in all aspects at international level.

I think every player is unproven at international level at some stage - the only way to find out if he can prove himself is to play him.

Exactly right. You look at the qualities, strengths and weaknesses of players, how they can adapt to situations and how they'll fit in. Then you throw them in the deep end.

There has to be a point were you want to build a fluid side and your tinkering stops pre world cup.

When people talk about ball carriers they tend to think of the likes of Picamoles standing deep to field the long kick and breaking through the kick chase. Shouldn't a good carrier though try and run an angle so as not to have head on contact with a tackler? McCaw is a good carrier but isn't someone who 'bursts' tackles - he supports well so is available for offloads to keep a move going and tries to avoid heavy contact. Do we want England to play a game plan where they run close to the edges of rucks and mauls so that they encounter tacklers, or do we want them to try and play a more open game and run into space?

South Africa seem to favour the former and New Zealand the latter. Whilst I don't think we should try and copy everything that New Zealand do, I think the win stats favour the New Zealand approach. I also think it favours the likes of Robshaw, Wood, Marler, etc - a case of playing to our strength. Even Billy V struggles with the quality of first up tackles, so simply trying to pound the ball up the pitch doesn't really work.

One of the problems in determining what constitutes good carrying is that what we can easily see - a huge forward or crashball centre breaking tackles and charging downfield - is not always what good carrying is about.

Haskell used to be great at breaking tackles but then getting isolated and losing the ball. That, in my book, is not good carrying.

Robshaw rarely makes big yards, but if you look at when he carries, he consistently takes responsibility for taking slow ball into heavy traffic and laying it back cleanly so that the next carrier has a better chance to make yards.

Johnson's England teams used to have me shouting at the screen in frustration as Croft and Haskell hung around in midfield waiting for a ball that never arrived because Moody or Rees or Wood was being swamped at the breakdown.

Tactics under Lancaster are more traditional: the forwards make short carries close to the scrum and try to suck in defenders, and then the ball gets spun wide. It has worked most of the time, though it's still vulnerable to a ref whose interpretation allows the opposition to pile over and kill the ball.

Poorfour wrote:One of the problems in determining what constitutes good carrying is that what we can easily see - a huge forward or crashball centre breaking tackles and charging downfield - is not always what good carrying is about.

Haskell used to be great at breaking tackles but then getting isolated and losing the ball. That, in my book, is not good carrying.

Robshaw rarely makes big yards, but if you look at when he carries, he consistently takes responsibility for taking slow ball into heavy traffic and laying it back cleanly so that the next carrier has a better chance to make yards.

Johnson's England teams used to have me shouting at the screen in frustration as Croft and Haskell hung around in midfield waiting for a ball that never arrived because Moody or Rees or Wood was being swamped at the breakdown.

Tactics under Lancaster are more traditional: the forwards make short carries close to the scrum and try to suck in defenders, and then the ball gets spun wide. It has worked most of the time, though it's still vulnerable to a ref whose interpretation allows the opposition to pile over and kill the ball.

Or have a decent balanced back row and forwards that can jackal