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:

BamBam wrote:Once the squad is named, i assume the players who would be regarded as injury replacements are still able to train with the squad to keep up fitness and knowledge of patterns etc?

Is there anything stopping Hartley doing the same? Or are the players not chosen going back to their clubs instead

As of the deadline cut-off (Midnight 31st August) anyone not in the squad is prohibited from training with the squad.

Ah ok, fair enough, suppose it makes sense to a degree.

Wonder what the players that other countries will be bringing over as potential replacements (eg Australia's third hooker!) will be doing then? The other NH sides will have players back at their club sides, but the others would struggle with that (other than probably SA)

Gooseberry Talking about £35000 down the toilet - imagine the amount the RFU will flush down it if Lancaster and co don't perform well in the RWC!

To be fair to Easter - even though I've questioned his spot he has performed well enough to be in the mix. Not sure relying on a 37 year old says much about our supposed strength in depth though.

As for Cipriani do any of you honestly want Cipriani to be 2nd choice FB? Let's say that Brown is injured would you really want a rookie winger or Cipriani to fill his shoes?

Utilise Goode properly and he should be fine.

Saying that the wingers can cover FB isn't something that's really been tried and tested by Lancaster.

Let's be realistic - Cipriani is not going to get past Ford and Farrell as a 10, Slade is the utility option, Goode is the 2nd choice FB.

Doesn't leave a spot for Cipriani. He's not done enough to be a bench option anyway as things stand.

I probably would rather see Cips/Watson be the full back cover, but you know my opinion of Goode

I don't think it makes a huge difference to the first choice matchday 23, there's no way that Cips would get ahead of Farrell as fly half cover on the bench, and it would be silly to have a 3rd fly half in the 23 shirt regardless of how well he covers FB

Barnes mentioned in commentary that Lancaster/another England coach possibly said they donn't think Watson is ready for full back so I'd imagine its one of Cipriani or Goode to cover from the bench.

Fair enough, I can see why you wouldn't want to throw in a non-specialist for a World Cup game. Which rules out Cipriani too, has to be Goode. Foden's injury is a real shame, his form was picking up again.

Entitled to your opinion on Goode - his pace is admittedly an issue but he has his strengths.

He's also more experienced and in just as good form as Cipriani.

I agree it makes no difference to the bench but it's about the squad as a whole.

You would have Cipriani to start for England in the FB position if Brown gets injured?

Sounds very risky to me.

When did Cipriani last start a game for England?

I say this because coming off the bench against opposition is different to starting IMO.

The forwards were very poor and Burrell gave stupid pens away too. I blame the coaches. Its their job to prepare the team to be in top form when they run out on to the pitch. mostly Rowntree has not done a good enough job. He has big questions to answer.

For Quins, Robshaw is a reliable lineout receiver and they tend to use him when they absolutely have to win the ball. England haven't needed to use him much but it looks like they should consider it...

Poorfour wrote:For Quins, Robshaw is a reliable lineout receiver and they tend to use him when they absolutely have to win the ball. England haven't needed to use him much but it looks like they should consider it...

To be honest for England he has quite often been the option when 'they absolutely have to win the ball'

Watson plays regularly and well for Bath at full-back, probably more so than at wing.  Cipriani has not played full-back recently on a regular basis (did I think in Australia).  Goode is a good full back, but has played little at fly-half.

In a match day squad of 23, Goode my be a luxury (as well as say Farrell) to cover FB as Watson/Nowell could do that if in the starting 15.

Watson plays regularly and well for Bath at full-back, probably more so than at wing.  Cipriani has not played full-back recently on a regular basis (did I think in Australia).  Goode is a good full back, but has played little at fly-half.

In a match day squad of 23, Goode my be a luxury (as well as say Farrell) to cover FB as Watson/Nowell could do that if in the starting 15.

cb wrote:Watson plays regularly and well for Bath at full-back, probably more so than at wing.  Cipriani has not played full-back recently on a regular basis (did I think in Australia).  Goode is a good full back, but has played little at fly-half.

In a match day squad of 23, Goode my be a luxury (as well as say Farrell) to cover FB as Watson/Nowell could do that if in the starting 15.

Its irrelevant how players have played...Lancaster will see it as he wants to ....

beshocked wrote:Entitled to your opinion on Goode - his pace is admittedly an issue but he has his strengths.

He's also more experienced and in just as good form as Cipriani.

I agree it makes no difference to the bench but it's about the squad as a whole.

You would have Cipriani to start for England in the FB position if Brown gets injured?

Sounds very risky to me.

When did Cipriani last start a game for England?

I say this because coming off the bench against opposition is different to starting IMO.

I would start Watson rather than Cips, but i'd have fingers, toes and everything else crossed that Brown doesn't get injured

As cb just said, he plays well there for Bath regularly, and if it gave the option of another real attacking threat I'd take it.

As I said though, its probably moot because even if Cips is in ahead of Goode for the squad, he won't make the bench ahead of Farrell and we won't have the extra option

GeordieFalcon wrote:

cb wrote:Watson plays regularly and well for Bath at full-back, probably more so than at wing.  Cipriani has not played full-back recently on a regular basis (did I think in Australia).  Goode is a good full back, but has played little at fly-half.

In a match day squad of 23, Goode my be a luxury (as well as say Farrell) to cover FB as Watson/Nowell could do that if in the starting 15.

Its irrelevant how players have played...Lancaster will see it as he wants to ....

and lets face it. Lancaster sees more rugby than we do, sees the players way more than we do and is light years ahead of us as a coach. All of us like to think we are knowledgable - but we are mere infants in our knowledge compared to international coaches.

cb it's about the 31 though.

Also Watson is mostly unproven at international at FB - he did a job vs Italy but I would say that Australia and Wales are a step up.

Nowell is unproven at FB at international level.

Need Watson and Nowell to excel on the wing consistently before shifting them around IMO.

It's a slightly different situation but we all know what happened when Monye was picked at FB....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVu_us8m2Qc

Not saying that Nowell or Watson would be similar but it's a risk.

And Goode has experience at FB in internationals and has been proved to be wanting.

So you are left with unproven vs not good enough (Dammit Foden - why??)

If we take the starting backs against France and bring in Watson for May and Barritt for Burrell (as representative of the best starting backs).

On the bench would probably be Care and Farrell, but who would your 3rd bench back be??  Once a regular center be the best option?

I'd go with May or Burrell

If May:

Care covers 9
Farrell covers 10 and 12
Nowell/May have both played 13
May obviously covers wing
Watson covers FB

If Burrell

Care covers 9
Farrell covers 10 + 12
Burrell covers 12 + 13
Joseph covers wing
Watson covers FB

Depends whether you'd rather have Joseph covering the wing or Nowell/May at 13 I guess! I'd definitely rather see Joseph at wing

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

cb wrote:Watson plays regularly and well for Bath at full-back, probably more so than at wing.  Cipriani has not played full-back recently on a regular basis (did I think in Australia).  Goode is a good full back, but has played little at fly-half.

In a match day squad of 23, Goode my be a luxury (as well as say Farrell) to cover FB as Watson/Nowell could do that if in the starting 15.

Its irrelevant how players have played...Lancaster will see it as he wants to ....

and lets face it. Lancaster sees more rugby than we do, sees the players way more than we do and is light years ahead of us as a coach. All of us like to think we are knowledgable - but we are mere infants in our knowledge compared to international coaches.

How very dare you LT......

PS on a serious note - He should be doing better than his is then if you ask me....

The Mail reckon Cipriani has been told he isn't making the squad .. kind of defeats the point of this trial game then doesn't it!

The trial game was yesterday.

The time is drawing close for England fans to be put out of their misery.

Here's who I think will be in the final England 31, and who I'd choose:

First - Lancaster's 31:

Props
Cole
Wilson
Marler
Vunipola
Brookes (Corbisiero not fit / robust enough)

Hookers
Youngs
Webber
George

Locks
Lawes
Launchbury
Parling
Attwood

Back Row
Robshaw
Wood
Haskell
Vunipola
Morgan

Scrum Halves
Youngs
Care
Wigglesworth

Fly Halves
Ford
Farrell

Centres
Barritt
Joseph
Slade
Burrell

Back 3
May
Nowell
Watson
Goode
Brown

Not sure there are any surprises there. Cipriani misses out as Goode has the history with the group. Burrell is more safe than Burgess. Easter's experience doesn't outweigh Morgan's potential. LCD isn't ready. Attwood out-muscles Kruis. Clark & 12T - meh.

Here's who I think he should pick (not limiting myself to the 39 he's got in camp as you'll see)

Props
Cole
Brookes
Marler
Vunipola
Corbisiero

Hookers
Youngs
Hartley
George

Locks
Lawes
Launchbury
Parling
Easter

Back Row
Robshaw
Wood
Haskell
Vunipola
Morgan

Scrum Halves
Youngs
Care
Simpson

Fly Halves
Ford
Farrell
Cipriani

Centres
Barritt
Joseph
Burgess
Slade

Back 3
Brown
Nowell
Watson
May

Never rated Wilson. Too many error in open field. Would prefer Brookes as TH back up and give Corbs the chance to hit peak form over the tournament. I think he deserves that.

I'd take Hartley. Why he hasn't been in squad is beyond me. Australia are going to the tournament with 2 hookers. We wouldn't even chance 1 game with 2? Seems over cautious to me. George gets the nod over Webber as the future of English hooking.

I'd take Easter as a back up lock. Experience and presence that we badly need. Unlikely to play in the big games, but proven to be solid. Bench option.

I'm taking a punt on Simpson here and his fitness. Youngs and Care are proven test starters, but Simpson's a momentum changer. Also back 3 cover.

Cipriani goes over Goode for me. Highly creative and we have Nowell and Watson who can play FB if needed. With Simpson, no need for Goode. Cipriani is, again, a bench option momentum changer.

Burgess over Burrell because 1) Momentum changer, 2) Personality 3) Back row cover adds flexibility to bench options.

Harsh on Wigglesworth, Kruis and Attwood but onto standby they go. as would Wilson, Mullen, Webber, Croft, Kvesic, Burrell, Wade & Goode.

Its a dissapointment in some ways for Cipriani but really it is hard to see how you shoe horn him into a squad that has long(ish) term set fly halves and all the wing / full backs it needs well imbedded into the squad already.

Lancaster has done his level best to avoid giving him an opportunity at all to even make the training squad, and has clealry never been his biggest fan. That he managed to get in trouble with the law whilst on the sauce in some ways makes him doubly lucky to have even got this far.

If the biggest problem we have with the squad is who should the third choice full back be then things maybe arent as bad as the France game suggests.

Not really a surprise Cips hasn't made it, if true.

Surely Kruis will be in there.
Parling, Lawes, Launchbury , Kruis

Attwood.

I would not be surprised to see Easter as one of the locks.  Not sure I agree or not.

Odd thing about Kruis, but if our line-out is pretty awful and we are a bit light-weight would Kruis have a role at blindside??  He generally seems to play OK and has gone well in the line-out.

I am not sure aboout defining a player by a single position, Australia don't, their backs can usually play along the line, so can France's. What makes everyone assume that because your club position is 10 you cannot play 15 equally as well? Cips has played 15 quite a bit over his career and I have yet to see him mess it up.

Is there much difference between the role Launchbury plays and that of a 6?

England want there back 5 (excluding No.8) to play the same...so I don't expect playing Kruis at 6 would be an issue...

The only thing would be pace...and that of the opposition. Wood isn't quick either mind...nor Robshaw.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:I am not sure aboout defining a player by a single position, Australia don't, their backs can usually play along the line, so can France's. What makes everyone assume that because your club position is 10 you cannot play 15 equally as well? Cips has played 15 quite a bit over his career and I have yet to see him mess it up.

It's because we're English and if people didn't stay in the same position they might not get out of the way so the flyhalf can boot the leather off it. Can't have uppity backs getting ideas above their station.

We're back to Lawes at 6 again.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:I am not sure aboout defining a player by a single position, Australia don't, their backs can usually play along the line, so can France's.

You are talking about people who can play in the back three and also midfield. We have players who can do that too, but none of them are in the squad: Delon Armitage, Mathew Tait and Elliot Daly. Two of them can also kick for goal.

Anyone else think the RFU really need to root out this oik that leaks their squads to the Telegraph? Or is this one just people jumping to conclusions based on Cipriani's Facebook post?

mid_gen wrote:Anyone else think the RFU really need to root out this oik that leaks their squads to the Telegraph?

Lancaster?

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:I am not sure aboout defining a player by a single position, Australia don't, their backs can usually play along the line, so can France's. What makes everyone assume that because your club position is 10 you cannot play 15 equally as well? Cips has played 15 quite a bit over his career and I have yet to see him mess it up.

Which is funny because theres usually one player in the squad who get derided as a utility back.


As for Cipriani at full back Im 75% certain (fact check required) his early appearences (and charge downs) were as a replacement at full back.


Now this England squad as its shaping up, can yous ay it has pigeon holed players? Farreel started out as a center and is still seen as cover for that (*cough* Flood* *cough*) , they are seriously talking about a rugby league forward playing as a 12, Goode is a fly half as much as he is a full back, and all the wingers also cover full back. Burrel has been played at both center positions and theres till a chance that Slade will go (as the dreaded utility back) to cover everything except hooker and god. On the subject of hookers one of those is a converted center. And of course the flankers are all out of position. Lawes is a part time 6 and Nick Easter covers any position that involves looking fat and old.

So its a bit unfair to say that Cipriani is being left out because England just dont have the imaginatiuon to play anyone out of position. Goode and Brown are both long term established players in the squad in that role.. One of ther big criticisms Lancvaster has had is a lack of consitency in selections and the filure to build a team who are used to playing together, now we are talking about chucking in a guy who was very late to the party (probably unfairly) to primarily cover a role he has played almost no rugby in in recent years.

It doenst really wash.

Hes not going, get over it. I wish he had been given a chance 9 months ago, but hey ho. He probably wouldve got run over by a bus again anyway.

mid_gen wrote:Anyone else think the RFU really need to root out this oik that leaks their squads to the Telegraph? Or is this one just people jumping to conclusions based on Cipriani's Facebook post?

I suspect the RFU Ministry of Truth has an unofficial deal in return for favourable and extensive coverage and a few free lunches. They "leak" information in a controlled manner. Its hardly unusual.

Cips was at 10 in the early days.

mid_gen wrote:Anyone else think the RFU really need to root out this oik that leaks their squads to the Telegraph? Or is this one just people jumping to conclusions based on Cipriani's Facebook post?

Telegraph thought Twelvetrees wouldn't make the last cut, and other leaks had Roko surviving it, so a lot of the "informed speculation" turned out to be inaccurate guesswork. It doesn't seem like a big call to say Cips hasn't made it, given that almost no-one expects Lancaster to select him.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cips was at 10 in the early days.

Do you mean 15?

Was replying to Gooseberry who mentioned charge downs so I'd assumed England. Sure he was playing at 10, though I'm getting old.

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cips was at 10 in the early days.

Do you mean 15?

He played at full back for Wasps when they won the Heineken Cup, but I'm fairly certain all his starts for England have been at fly half.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Was replying to Gooseberry who mentioned charge downs so I'd assumed England. Sure he was playing at 10, though I'm getting old.

Oh right, thought you were referring to versatility rather than responding to a specific point, sorry. Seemed strange to point out that he's played somewhere he plays now.

I honestly would have Cips over Farrell for cover at 10. Much more dynamic player and suits the style of play England were doing very well with Ford at 10. When Farrell plays at 10, England really lose alot attackingly, i see Farrell as being only a safe kicking option. Sarries even played better rugby with Charlie at 10...

eirebilly wrote:I honestly would have Cips over Farrell for cover at 10. Much more dynamic player and suits the style of play England were doing very well with Ford at 10. When Farrell plays at 10, England really lose alot attackingly, i see Farrell as being only a safe kicking option. Sarries even played better rugby with Charlie at 10...

Maybe they have earmarked Slade for that role...and he gives Lancaster what he desires that Cips doesn't...a rock solid defence.

Cips is not that bad defensively, not as solid as Slade but not exactly a huge weak link. Offensively, Cips is your man to come on as an impact sub around 60mins.

Slade isn't far off that though...and he covers 10/12/13 and I dare say 14 / 15 aswell.

Im not a Cipriani basher...I just think Slade looks far more a "Lancaster" player than Cipriani. Lancaster just likes safe players...even amongst his "skilled, creative" ones

I get what you are saying there Geordie, i am just a fan of Cips and believe he deserves a spot in the squad above Farrell.

Telegraph also reckon Kruis is in ahead of Attwood for the 4th lock place

To be honest there's not really been much between Kruis and Attwood.

Could just flip a coin IMO.

eirebilly When did Cipriani last start a game for England? The reason he hasn't is that he's simply not been better than the players in possession of the shirt. It's funny to say it about a player whose been around for so long but Cipriani is still largely unproven at international level - his best results so far at international level have been a very good performance at 10 in 2008 and a couple of decent cameos off the bench against Italy (this year ) and France (warm up game). Then you throw in the chargedowns mentioned by Gooseberry and his international career doesn't look good.

Perhaps you might say but that was a long time ago and he's a new man.

Well getting accused of drink driving isn't exactly a fresh start.

It's frustating because I want to like Cipriani - when he first came on the scene all the way back in 2008 he looked the real deal - remember him winning the HC as a FB and thinking this kid looks great, great performance against Ireland too -seemed the future would have been bright but then followed his injury, the press, the high profile celebrity girlfriend and the discipline and mental state of mind was shot. He got charged down in 3 matches. Got knocked out by Lewsey in training, went off to Australia for a shot of redemption, got into even more trouble, came back - joined Sale with much fanfare, Sale almost got relegated with Cipriani performing poorly, after near relegation miss he's turned it around to some degree but he still got hit by a bus because he was drunk and has been accused of drink driving.

The current state of affairs though is that he's got less recent international experience as a starter than Farrell and Ford. Ford and Farrell are superior players IMO. Cipriani is praised because of his creativity but rugby isn't just about that.

Sometimes it's about sheer bloodymindedness. England in 2007 and France in 2011 should not have got to the RWC finals but they did. It wasn't because they had the best players - those two teams were not as strong as ones in the past. It was because they had players who could drag them into those positions.

My favourite club example is Saracens vs Ospreys HC quarter final in 2008 - Ospreys should have won that game - they had numerous Welsh stars, the galacticos, the bulk of the team had won the GS yet they lost against a Saracens side that would have lost on paper and had lost the week before heavily in the LV cup. One man on one leg inspired Saracens to victory. He was a player past his prime but his sheer bloodymindedness made the difference - that man was of course Richard Hill.

Personally I don't think Cipriani is going to be doing that. He might be able to create some magic when either a game is already lost or already won but I want to see him changing/influencing a game in the balance. The last time I saw a performance from Cipriani like that was far too long ago.

Some People say a 10 can't influence a team and match - tell that to the likes of Jonny Wilkinson and Dan Carter.

Given his run outs from the bench it seems more likely it was Cipriani was, or is as it hasnt been announced yet, being considered as full back cover. He d be a good option on the bench if needing some control or magic.