The England World Cup Thread

[LondonTiger]

First topic message reminder :

Fixtures

ENGLAND 35 FIJI 11



ENGLAND v WALES at Twickenham Stadium, London
Saturday 26th September 2015 – Kick Off: 8:00pm
Referee: Jérôme Garcès (FFR)

ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA at Twickenham Stadium, London
Saturday 3rd October 2015 – Kick Off: 8:00pm
Referee: Romain Poite (FFR)

ENGLAND v URUGUAY at Manchester City Stadium, Manchester
Saturday 10th October 2015 – Kick Off: 8:00pm
Referee: Chris Pollock (NZR)



Other Pool A Fixtures

Sun 20th September 2:30pm Wales v Uruguay Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
Wed 23rd September 4:45pm Australia v Fiji Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
Sun 27th September 12:00pm Australia v Uruguay Villa Park, Birmingham
Thu 1st October 4:45pm Wales v Fiji Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
Tue 6th October 8:00pm Fiji v Uruguay Stadium MK, Milton Keynes
Sat 10th October 4:45pm Australia v Wales Twickenham Stadium, London



Table

England P1; W1; L0; D0; PF35; PA11; Points 5
Australia P0; W0; L0; D0; PF0; PA0; Points 0
Uruguay P0; W0; L0; D0; PF0; PA0; Points 0
Wales P0; W0; L0; D0; PF0; PA0; Points 0
Fiji P1; W0; L1; D0; PF11; PA35; Points 0


Team for next Match

TBC

[HammerofThunor]

Just as an aside. When Lancaster came in he made this statement about the RWC '15

If we look at previous winners of the World Cup, Australia in 1999 had a total of caps 622 in their starting XV, England had 638 in 2003, South Africa had 668 [in 2007] and New Zealand had 709 last year.
Our rough projection for 2015 with the team that we have got, give or take some players who will drop out and come into it, will have a total of 663 caps, which hopefully will put us in a good place

I like Stuart Lancaster, but that did make me laugh. How is a total of 663 caps a 'rough projection'?! That's a very precise figure!

If you apply rough factors (50% of the squad will be retained and play about 80% of the games, 5% will have capped in that years six nations with 3 games on average, etc.) can given you an exact number but is still a rough projection.

[robbo277]

I guess the feeling with Youngs for this one is to go with him and hope he comes off in the set piece, because if he does he adds the value around the park. If his set piece is struggling Lancaster can bring on Webber, who's never let England down.

Not the way I would have gone, I would have trialled George as I think his set piece is better than Youngs and his open game is better than Webber's, but he's unproven at international level and he offers neither Youngs explosiveness or Webber's security, so he is a bit of a gamble. I guess it would have just been too much coming from outside the 50 man squad to starting the first game.

The other consideration is the bench. If Mako and Brookes are your props they bring carrying games but aren't the destroyers in the scrum. If you have Youngs on the bench all three of your guys are weaker scrummagers, so you're going to lose a lot of power when you make the switches. Leaving Youngs out would also potentially leave us light on carrying options in the starting line up.

Tough call whichever way you cut it.

[beshocked]

Geordiefalcon 6 out of 8 of that pack started vs Wales which will face Fiji. It's the front five that are more integral to the scrum than the backrow anyway.

I single out Parling and T.Youngs because they are in my opinion underpowered for their positions.


robbo277 what's the point of risking the set piece struggling in the first place?

As for Webber never letting England down - what has he actually done of note for England? People talk about his "experience" - most of that has been as a benchman, has he ever been deemed good enough to start in an important game?

The problem is if Lancaster doesn't pick George then he likely never will because George will always stay too inexperienced because Lancaster won't pick him.

Players can't get experience because Lancaster won't pick them and they are dismissed because they are deemed too inexperienced.....

It's a vicious circle.

Only way to break this circle is injuries - forces Lancaster to pick other players.

George might well prove to better than both Youngs and Webber but Lancaster isn't giving him the opportunity despite him performing well in the warm ups and last season.

I think that's wrong.

[No 7&1/2]

Has Webber looked out of place for England?

[beshocked]

You should really answer my questions first.

Asking another question isn't an answer to mine.

He's not really had much gametime when you think about it because he's not been good enough.

13 caps in 3 years.  Most of them as a replacement.

His starts have been mostly in inconsequential games/easy ones. I think 4 starts vs 9 replacements.

He's simply not been as good as Hartley and has even been deemed not as good as T.Youngs.

He's lucky to be in the 23 against Fiji too.

To be honest I think Webber is gven far too much credit.

2nd fiddle to Ross Batty this season at Bath.

Meant to be solid and experienced - he's barely proven himself at international level.

One start in an inconsequential warm up game vs France doesn't prove much.

I guess I would say he's looks out of place because he's currently undeservedly stopping George from gaining gametime and would struggle for gametime if Hartley was fit.

In terms of international minutes he probably has less gametime than most of the squad!

It's not just a so called Saracens bias, quite a few posters believe that George should have been in the 23.

Lancaster's conservative nature and poor usage as the squad as a whole might well be his downfall.

[ChequeredJersey]

I think, given how he has been by far the best hooker on show for us in the set piece, it's a big error to not at least have George on the bench, unless Lancaster (validly) thinks that the set piece won't be a factor at all in the second half. But then his back selection makes even less sense.

I've just always thought he has little idea what it is he wants to achieve with his subs. Which is fine if you don't then force it and make substitutions no matter how well any individual in the pitch is playing. But you can't make predetermined substitutions as many suspect Bomber does if there's no real plan for what they are there to do

[No 7&1/2]

I didn't realise they were directed at me beshocked so I'll have a go now.
Lancaster's thoughts are make the set piece good but not the priority with forwards adding more than scrum or lineout. Personally I think too much is made of Youngs 'weakness' in general, he's not great but good.

Webber has never let England down. In respect to ever being deemed good enough there was a growing voice calling for him to get his chance as the starting hooker around 2-3 years ago but Lancaster has never seen him as such.

I was one of those thinking including Webber was foolish as he was poor this season. He has been the most solid hooker at set piece in the warm ups though.

Thought you were critical of Lancaster because he wasn't conservative enough ie including May and Nowell.

George has been decent but Webber has been too and has been around the squad longer and based on past England performances isn't a risk.

[beshocked]

Chequeredjersey completely agree.

Does seem to be predetermined. I know I keep going back to that France vs England game in 2014 but why on earth did Lancaster take off Hartley and Care who at the time were playing well? Seemed to suck the momentum out of the team.

The worst thing a coach can do is bring off someone playing well IMO unless they are noticeably tiring,carrying a niggle or injured.

Too many times I have seen a team's structure go to pot when mass subs are made.

I know Saracens do pre-determined subs and perhaps Farrell Sr has encouraged England to adopt that approach too.

[beshocked]

no 7 & 1/2 there are times and places to be conservative.

France away isn't the same as Fiji at home....

Also the England squad have had 3 warm up games to prepare for the Fiji game whereas France away - the England squad were thrown into it with a lot less preparation.

George adds more than the scrum and lineout - joint top tackler in the ERCC this season, can accelerate surprisingly quickly for a big bloke.

Too much is made of T.Youngs lineout throwing? It's not one game that criticism has been based on. It's been a few.

Webber hasn't really let England down because he's never really faced a proper challenge.

If you don't start him in the big games then of course it's a bit easier to keep his record unblemished.

Some players haven't necessarily let England down but it doesn't mean they should be in the 23.

It's about picking the best players.

[spaynter]

Chequeredjersey completely agree.

Does seem to be predetermined. I know I keep going back to that France vs England game in 2014 but why on earth did Lancaster take off Hartley and Care who at the time were playing well? Seemed to suck the momentum out of the team.

The worst thing a coach can do is bring off someone playing well IMO unless they are noticeably tiring,carrying a niggle or injured.

Too many times I have seen a team's structure go to pot when mass subs are made.

I know Saracens do pre-determined subs and perhaps Farrell Sr has encouraged England to adopt that approach too.

Everyone always empties their benches. You think we'll get a competitive advantage from not doing it?

[Geordie]

Chequeredjersey completely agree.

Does seem to be predetermined. I know I keep going back to that France vs England game in 2014 but why on earth did Lancaster take off Hartley and Care who at the time were playing well? Seemed to suck the momentum out of the team.

The worst thing a coach can do is bring off someone playing well IMO unless they are noticeably tiring,carrying a niggle or injured.

Too many times I have seen a team's structure go to pot when mass subs are made.

I know Saracens do pre-determined subs and perhaps Farrell Sr has encouraged England to adopt that approach too.

Everyone always empties their benches. You think we'll get a competitive advantage from not doing it?

Beshocked is saying why take players off when they are playing well...something Lancaster is very guilty of through his reign. Its something I totally agree with Beshocked about.

Don't make the changes for the sake of it. If someone is visibly tired or flagging or not playing well...fine make a sub.

If a guy is dictating the game....don't take him off!!!

[No 7&1/2]

Fiji at home in the WC where we need points is a big game. It comes down to you rate George more than Youngs and Webber and some don't. Personally I think he'll push strongly for a starting spot in the near future but he's not made an overwhelming case as yet.

[yappysnap]

If you're playing very well, and the oppositions subs need time to get into the game (which often happens) then yes I think there's a massive advantage to keeping those players on.

[spaynter]

Chequeredjersey completely agree.

Does seem to be predetermined. I know I keep going back to that France vs England game in 2014 but why on earth did Lancaster take off Hartley and Care who at the time were playing well? Seemed to suck the momentum out of the team.

The worst thing a coach can do is bring off someone playing well IMO unless they are noticeably tiring,carrying a niggle or injured.

Too many times I have seen a team's structure go to pot when mass subs are made.

I know Saracens do pre-determined subs and perhaps Farrell Sr has encouraged England to adopt that approach too.

Everyone always empties their benches. You think we'll get a competitive advantage from not doing it?

Beshocked is saying why take players off when they are playing well...something Lancaster is very guilty of through his reign. Its something I totally agree with Beshocked about.

Don't make the changes for the sake of it. If someone is visibly tired or flagging or not playing well...fine make a sub.

If a guy is dictating the game....don't take him off!!!

I'd be interested to know when the last time an tier 1 international scrum half finished a whole game.

[screamingaddabs]

Chequeredjersey completely agree.

Does seem to be predetermined. I know I keep going back to that France vs England game in 2014 but why on earth did Lancaster take off Hartley and Care who at the time were playing well? Seemed to suck the momentum out of the team.

The worst thing a coach can do is bring off someone playing well IMO unless they are noticeably tiring,carrying a niggle or injured.

Too many times I have seen a team's structure go to pot when mass subs are made.

I know Saracens do pre-determined subs and perhaps Farrell Sr has encouraged England to adopt that approach too.

Everyone always empties their benches. You think we'll get a competitive advantage from not doing it?

Beshocked is saying why take players off when they are playing well...something Lancaster is very guilty of through his reign. Its something I totally agree with Beshocked about.

Don't make the changes for the sake of it. If someone is visibly tired or flagging or not playing well...fine make a sub.

If a guy is dictating the game....don't take him off!!!

I'd be interested to know when the last time an tier 1 international scrum half finished a whole game.

Or indeed a tight head prop!

[Gooseberry]

Chequeredjersey completely agree.

Does seem to be predetermined. I know I keep going back to that France vs England game in 2014 but why on earth did Lancaster take off Hartley and Care who at the time were playing well? Seemed to suck the momentum out of the team.

The worst thing a coach can do is bring off someone playing well IMO unless they are noticeably tiring,carrying a niggle or injured.

Too many times I have seen a team's structure go to pot when mass subs are made.

I know Saracens do pre-determined subs and perhaps Farrell Sr has encouraged England to adopt that approach too.

Everyone always empties their benches. You think we'll get a competitive advantage from not doing it?

Beshocked is saying why take players off when they are playing well...something Lancaster is very guilty of through his reign. Its something I totally agree with Beshocked about.

Don't make the changes for the sake of it. If someone is visibly tired or flagging or not playing well...fine make a sub.

If a guy is dictating the game....don't take him off!!!

I'd be interested to know when the last time an tier 1 international scrum half finished a whole game.

http://en.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/244319.html


Ignoring the recent friendlies (where changes are made much more frequently) thats the last competitive international test match played by tier one nations.

The same day

http://en.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/244317.html

[screamingaddabs]

Chequeredjersey completely agree.

Does seem to be predetermined. I know I keep going back to that France vs England game in 2014 but why on earth did Lancaster take off Hartley and Care who at the time were playing well? Seemed to suck the momentum out of the team.

The worst thing a coach can do is bring off someone playing well IMO unless they are noticeably tiring,carrying a niggle or injured.

Too many times I have seen a team's structure go to pot when mass subs are made.

I know Saracens do pre-determined subs and perhaps Farrell Sr has encouraged England to adopt that approach too.

Everyone always empties their benches. You think we'll get a competitive advantage from not doing it?

Beshocked is saying why take players off when they are playing well...something Lancaster is very guilty of through his reign. Its something I totally agree with Beshocked about.

Don't make the changes for the sake of it. If someone is visibly tired or flagging or not playing well...fine make a sub.

If a guy is dictating the game....don't take him off!!!

I'd be interested to know when the last time an tier 1 international scrum half finished a whole game.

http://en.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/244319.html


Ignoring the recent friendlies (where changes are made much more frequently) thats the last competitive international test match played by tier one nations.

The same day

http://en.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/244317.html

Now do the tight heads!

[No 7&1/2]

We did have Cole playing 70-80 min and criticism at lancaster as he was being overplayed. that did finish with him getting injured as well.

[yappysnap]

The Fiji team looks fun to watch too, weirdly I hope they get a chance to run the ball a bit!

[yappysnap]

We did have Cole playing 70-80 min and criticism at lancaster as he was being overplayed. that did finish with him getting injured as well.

Surely that's another highlight of his poor bench use? Subbing some players no matter what form or fitness requires. And then playing others into the ground.

[screamingaddabs]

We did have Cole playing 70-80 min and criticism at lancaster as he was being overplayed. that did finish with him getting injured as well.

To be fair Lancaster would get that no matter what he did.

You're right of course, and I'm sure there will be some recent games where a three has played all the way through, but it is rare. Normally it's a new front row at 60-65 mins.

I have no great problem with subs around 60 minutes, except in cases where omeone is clearly playing brilliantly. In that case, adapt and leave them on. Also, I would tend to do it in two goes. One lot at 50-60 mins and one lot 5 to 10 minutes later to try to get some consistency (not all the changes at once).

[No 7&1/2]

We did have Cole playing 70-80 min and criticism at lancaster as he was being overplayed. that did finish with him getting injured as well.

Surely that's another highlight of his poor bench use? Subbing some players no matter what form or fitness requires. And then playing others into the ground.

Yes. His poor bench use is shown by either leaving players on who are playing well and by taking players off who are playing well.

[beshocked]

no 7 & 1/2 he can't push on if not given the opportunities.

At home vs Fiji is IMO a much easier game than France away.

It's much nicer for players to play at home IMO.

spaynter

There are pros and cons to emptying a bench.

The con is that it can ruin the structure and a momentum of a team, alternatively it can revitalise a team. Depends on the situation too.

as Yappysnap says A player who just comes onto the pitch will be prone to mistakes till they get their eye in.

Some teams like to do pre determined subs so the players on the pitch can work their socks off for 60 minutes then come off and replaced by fresh players who know they are going to get at least 20 minutes of game. This is good for player morale. Though the issue is that it's a rigid structure.

[Gooseberry]

Using the bench is more important in a world cup where theres a large number of comeptitive games in a compressed timeframe. theres also something to be said for having combinations and changes in style to go with the replacements based on game situation.

That aside its still fair comment to suggest that theres been changes made ofr the sake of it at times.

[No 7&1/2]

no 7 & 1/2 he can't push on if not given the opportunities.

At home vs Fiji is IMO a much easier game than France away.

It's much nicer for players to play at home IMO.

spaynter

There are pros and cons to emptying a bench.

The con is that it can ruin the structure and a momentum of a team, alternatively it can revitalise a team. Depends on the situation too.

as Yappysnap says A player who just comes onto the pitch will be prone to mistakes till they get their eye in.

Some teams like to do pre determined subs so the players on the pitch can work their socks off for 60 minutes then come off and replaced by fresh players who know they are going to get at least 20 minutes of game. This is good for player morale. Though the issue is that it's a rigid structure.

He's not judged good enough at present obviously. He hasn't been amazing in his brief appearances yet, not enough to over take. Sometimes it will need an outstanding performance off the bench or as you say an injury to prove it. Neither have happened yet.

[beshocked]

no 7 & 1/2

Lancaster isn't perfect. He makes mistakes. I believe this is one of them. Lancaster wouldn't have had George in his 50 if he had his own way.

Similarly I believe his back replacements are questionable too.

It's a bit depressing when the only way Lancaster will pick George is if Webber or T.Youngs are injured. When Hartley returns the situation for George will only get worse.

[No 7&1/2]

Do you think George has produced an outstanding performance in the warm ups? Hehad the chance against France and missed his first lineout, same as Youngs is criticsed for. For me for him to get in he needed to be flawless as Webber has been proved as solid.

[BamBam]

Jamie George has clearly taken on the baton from Itoje as the most hard done by person in the universe

[ChequeredJersey]

We did have Cole playing 70-80 min and criticism at lancaster as he was being overplayed. that did finish with him getting injured as well.

Tighthead is a rare position that Lancaster DOESN'T take off Cole, even when he should

Anyway, happy with the starting XV. Hopefully the bench won't matter too much

[beshocked]

no 7 & 1/2 why does he need to be outstanding? He's been consistently better than Webber this season and was good in the warm ups. Surely that should be enough. Which other England player has been burdened with having to pull out a 9/10 or 10/10 performance out of their backside?

It seems like you are expecting George to be outstanding whilst you are happy for Webber to be "solid" - whatever that means. Webber hasn't been tearing up trees so I am not sure how he's really made himself stand out.

Webber is not a particularly experienced hooker as I have already explained. He's not as "proven" as you believe he is. 13 caps - 4 as starter, 9 as replacement in 3 years.

You say he's not let England down - equally I could say he's not been missed, he's not been very important. It's not like his absence from the England side has been felt.

He's not really had enough caps to be deemed reliable or not.

Bambam thank you for adding that productive post to the discussion. Very informative.

Would be nice if instead of criticising me actually made an argument on why you think I am wrong.

[No 7&1/2]

If someone has been trusted in the role and has been solid I think it would take something a bit special to out him. As it is George came on and was alright, and solid the same as Webber was. I think it'll take more than that from George (which I think he's capable of) to oust someone who has proved in the past he's decent or the opposite to be fair; Webber to be terrible. As Webber didn't bring his Bath form and Geroge was ok it was a bit of a status quo. Yes you're right Lancaster could have taken a slight risk and put George on the bench but I don't think it's shocknig George isn't there.

[BamBam]

Well I pretty much agree with everything 7.5 has said, so don't have much to add

I would say that Henry Slade was very good in his debut, and since then has barely had a look in, as Burgess has been favoured.

Equally, Nowell has played very well over his last few appearances, but May has jumped ahead of him as he has had an extra game in the warm ups and took his chance very well.

Not too dissimilar to George's situation, it happens over the course of a tournament and as you are so fond of saying, its all about the squad in a tournament.

I'd be surprised if the 3 of them weren't in the 23 by the time England play their final game of the tournament, whenever that may be

[LondonTiger]

We did have Cole playing 70-80 min and criticism at lancaster as he was being overplayed. that did finish with him getting injured as well.

Tighthead is a rare position that Lancaster DOESN'T take off Cole, even when he should

Anyway, happy with the starting XV. Hopefully the bench won't matter too much

He has replaced him earlier since the neck injury.

[ChequeredJersey]

I thought George was better than alright in the loose and in the scrum and lineout, and better than I've seen ever at Int level from Webber, but that's just me

[BamBam]

You know I'm a fan of George CJ, but even I don't think its completely outlandish to have Webber in front of him for this game

[Scottrf]

Training is more important than a season of rugby or competitive game! Get with the program.

[beshocked]

no 7 & 1/2 you talk about trust. Webber has not been in Lancaster's plans for most of his tenure.

Proven in the past he's decent? How can you say that when he's not played many minutes of international rugby? I am not sure how you can keep saying how reliable and solid he is when you have barely any evidence of it in the big games.

It's about destroying myths - the current myth is that Webber is a proven excellent performer at international level. He's not - he's worse than T.Youngs and Hartley. Should be behind George in the pecking order too.

Bambam I also believe that it's wrong that Slade and Nowell are overlooked but hooker seems to be a more key position.

To be fair to May he's done well in the warm ups - just hope he can bring that form to the RWC.

I say it's about the squad yes but you have to utilise the players effectively. Not waste opportunities.

England won the RWC in 2003 because they had the best squad IMO.

Oh right so throw Slade and George into the Uruguay which is one of the least important games.... that's great...

[No 7&1/2]

He's been the 3rd/2nd choice for all of Lancaster's reign hasn't he so i would assume he is trusted?

I say he's been decent because in his limited appearances (not sure how many mins he's played) he's never been below par or produced a shocker as far as I remember. There were a few people around the Argie tour who were hoping he would go on to be 1st choice as well.

Who's said he's a proven excellent performer?

Surely Uruguay is a good game as we're sure to win and they'll be at home?

[spaynter]

Chequeredjersey completely agree.

Does seem to be predetermined. I know I keep going back to that France vs England game in 2014 but why on earth did Lancaster take off Hartley and Care who at the time were playing well? Seemed to suck the momentum out of the team.

The worst thing a coach can do is bring off someone playing well IMO unless they are noticeably tiring,carrying a niggle or injured.

Too many times I have seen a team's structure go to pot when mass subs are made.

I know Saracens do pre-determined subs and perhaps Farrell Sr has encouraged England to adopt that approach too.

Everyone always empties their benches. You think we'll get a competitive advantage from not doing it?

Beshocked is saying why take players off when they are playing well...something Lancaster is very guilty of through his reign. Its something I totally agree with Beshocked about.

Don't make the changes for the sake of it. If someone is visibly tired or flagging or not playing well...fine make a sub.

If a guy is dictating the game....don't take him off!!!

I'd be interested to know when the last time an tier 1 international scrum half finished a whole game.

http://en.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/244319.html


Ignoring the recent friendlies (where changes are made much more frequently) thats the last competitive international test match played by tier one nations.

The same day

http://en.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/244317.html

Neither team had a scrum half on the bench. Both teams emptied their benches.

I'll change the question: When was the last time a tier 1 team had the option of subbing the SH, but didn't?

[No 7&1/2]

Well I pretty much agree with everything 7.5 has said, so don't have much to add

I would say that Henry Slade was very good in his debut, and since then has barely had a look in, as Burgess has been favoured.

Equally, Nowell has played very well over his last few appearances, but May has jumped ahead of him as he has had an extra game in the warm ups and took his chance very well.

Not too dissimilar to George's situation, it happens over the course of a tournament and as you are so fond of saying, its all about the squad in a tournament.

I'd be surprised if the 3 of them weren't in the 23 by the time England play their final game of the tournament, whenever that may be

I would prefer to see Slade in particular or Nowell on the bench as I think they offer very different options as well as good cover whereas I'm not convinced in Joseph gets injured early that Barritt and Burgess are a good fit. I suppose he could bring on farrell at 12 but still not convinced.

[beshocked]

no 7 & 1/2 not trusted to start in the big games though......

Wasn't that against a 2nd string Argentina?

You are inferring that he's a proven excellent performer.

Uruguay is pretty much a meaningless game. England's RWC will likely not hinge on that game. Seems like throwing a bone to give players like Slade,George a game.

[No 7&1/2]

Not trusted or Lancaster thought that Youngs and Hartley were better? I'd say he just thought they were better.

Excellent perfomer, ok my fault, I was meaning to portray him as being decent whenever called upon and never letting England down. Sorry if I've led you to believe I think he's the 2nd coming, know we've had this problem before when i've said twelvetrees was always a 7 out of ten guy and made you think he was the next greenwood.

So the Uruyguay game should be great for throwing a few in? No pressure, not a big game, one we're expecting to win.

[pledgeX]

Does anyone think Burgess on the bench for Fiji means Lancaster rates him higher than Slade?

I personally think Lancaster is more comfortable with Slade and trusts him to slot in (to the bench in place of Burgess I mean) for the big games without a problem, whereas he's putting Burgess on the bench a) to give him more game time and b) because he hopes the game will be won before he gets on the park.

Like a few others have mentioned, I'd worry if Burgess is on the bench during the big games as he doesn't offer the flexibility of Slade.

[screamingaddabs]

Does anyone think Burgess on the bench for Fiji means Lancaster rates him higher than Slade?

I personally think Lancaster is more comfortable with Slade and trusts him to slot in (to the bench in place of Burgess I mean) for the big games without a problem, whereas he's putting Burgess on the bench a) to give him more game time and b) because he hopes the game will be won before he gets on the park.

Like a few others have mentioned, I'd worry if Burgess is on the bench during the big games as he doesn't offer the flexibility of Slade.

I think Lancaster trusts all his squad members. I think you are right about more game time for Burgess. He didn't have a great game last time out so he actually needs to show something from the bench, otherwise I think Slade will definitely be on the bench next time out. If he does perform then I have no idea. I don't think Lancaster is against Ford, Farrell, Barritt in the case of an injured JJ (during the game) so he mau stick with Burgess. Personally I think Slade offers more.

[lostinwales]

Does anyone think Burgess on the bench for Fiji means Lancaster rates him higher than Slade?

I personally think Lancaster is more comfortable with Slade and trusts him to slot in (to the bench in place of Burgess I mean) for the big games without a problem, whereas he's putting Burgess on the bench a) to give him more game time and b) because he hopes the game will be won before he gets on the park.

Like a few others have mentioned, I'd worry if Burgess is on the bench during the big games as he doesn't offer the flexibility of Slade.

I believe this selection is very much 'horses for courses'

Can't yet tell if George is just gonna be the +1 for this tournament but I would bet that Slade and Nowell will get game time

[HongKongCherry]

Slade has only started once and has not played with the bulk of what appears to be the first choice backline. If Bomber genuinely rated him ahead of Burgess he'd have him on the bench to build familiarity ahead of the bigger games against Wales and Aus.

[nlpnlp]

I think Slade is the 'safe' option and that Burgess is the 'wild card'. Burgess might win you a tight quarter final/semi final with a crash over try/big tackle. So I think Lancaster will give Burgess the opportunity in little cameo performances to be the x-factor player. I would assume that if we got to a stage in a big match where Barritt and Joseph were injured, I would expect a midfield of Slade and Farrell to start, rather than Burgess with one of them. In the big games, I just think Burgess is a luxury gamble for Lancaster coming off the bench and not an integral starting player.

[beshocked]

no 7 & 1/2  oh never mind you and I will never agree. You think that Webber is a proven international performer with only 4 starts against mediocre opposition.

Webber has less international starts than George Ford!

To be honest if Twelvetrees was averaging 7/10 every game I think most would be happy with that.

Unfortunately it's generally been round the 5/10 mark IMO.

You need some pressure. Have to have some balance.

Uruguay at home - too easy, France away - too hard, Fiji at home - ideal.

It's about building up to the bigger games. If England can't beat Fiji at home they might as well give up now.


As for Slade being a safe option - he might have more rugby union experience than Burgess but he's still one of the least experienced backs in the squad. He's not been allowed to settle into a partnership or a position for that matter.

It's all well and good saying he can cover 10,12 and 13 but he's not getting enough opportunities to show any of that.

[No 7&1/2]

Just for future reference how many mintutes without a mistake does it take to become proven? And can we have a list of teams and venues where debuts are ok. Cheers.

Fair enough if you think that about twelvetrees, but just to confirm I've said neither him nor Webber are outstanding players!

[No 7&1/2]

I think Slade is the 'safe' option and that Burgess is the 'wild card'.  Burgess might win you a tight quarter final/semi final with a crash over try/big tackle.  So I think Lancaster will give Burgess the opportunity in little cameo performances to be the x-factor player.  I would assume that if we got to a stage in a big match where Barritt and Joseph were injured, I would expect a midfield of Slade and Farrell to start, rather than Burgess with one of them.  In the big games, I just think Burgess is a luxury gamble for Lancaster coming off the bench and not an integral starting player.

I think Burgess is seen as a like for like replacement with Barritt, albeit not as good.

[Sponsored content]