England Post World Cup

First topic message reminder :

Who comes in...and who goes

How about this team for the next game after the WC

1 Marler
2 Tommy Taylor (Sale)
3 Cole
4 Launchbury
5 Lawes (Itoje on the bench)
6 Ewers
7 Kvesic (Clifford on the bench)
8 Morgan

9 Youngs
10 Slade
11 May
12 Tom Stepheson / Sam Hill
13 Joseph
14 Watson
15 Brown

screamingaddabs wrote:1-5 should be the biggest nastiest set-piece dominating pieces of work that we have.  They spend the game hitting rucks and mauls hard and pushing hard in the scrum and winning line-out ball.  If they get the ball in open play they run in a straight line HARD.  2 can throw in the lineout consistently.

Do we still have those types of hard nosed set piece dominating forwards available to us? We could pick some with a bit more in that area but I don't feel we have real brutes to call on at the moment to change things up.

We could pick locks such as Attwood or Slater who provide more ballast in the scrum. Even then, Attwood was given an opportunity and failed to grasp it. That said the scrum was stronger with him in the boiler room.

At hooker changes could be made with George a good option as a big lump who does the basics well.

At TH Davey Wilson and Dan Cole have been pretty even at scrum time for much of their wrestling over the TH shirt. I do think Wilson has been underused in this RWC when Cole has lost form however. Especially given Brookes can't last more than 15-20 minutes at test intensity.

At LH none of our options are really dominant scrummagers at current. Marler has been excellent at set piece and strong around the park until put under scrutiny at the world cup. Mako is a good carrier who has been much improved in the scrum this season. Neither had the best world cup but are worth persevering with unless someone like Waller can really push through.

1.Marler
2.George
3.Wilson
4.Launchbury
5.Slater

16.Youngs 17.Mako 18.Cole 19.Lawes

That could provide some more scrum ballast and heavy duty carrying around the ground plus big impact from the bench late on.

king_carlos wrote:At hooker changes could be made with George a good option as a big lump who does the basics well..

He is the only Hooker in contention who has not converted from another position. I woudl like him to follow Dane Coles example and do some serious stretching and mobility exercises (perhaps with Ballet dancers) to ensure he is actually supple enough to hook the ball - as at the moment unless the scrum is set high he cannot.

However now that the WC is almost over we do need to start looking at him properly, so long as he can retain the Sarries shirt.

I agree at LH we don't have monsters at the moment but we should watch the progression of Auterac at Bath. He's only 21/22 and the strongest player on the Bath squad.

If he can play rugby well then you have your LH in a wee while.

But for the moment we need Marler to regain his confidence. He has been excellent at times. Just looks jaded.

I'd also hope,to see how,George progresses....and If LCD can learn to throw.

A couple of thoughts. Firstly SL doesn't sound quite so certain about resigning today. I think he'll probably still go, but we'll see. There certanly have to be changes in the coaching - I think Rowntree needs to definitely move on: he's been a fine coach but our forward play has deteriorated alarmingly. At the moment it doesn't feel like one change would be enough, but I can't see SL parting with Farrell.

Secondly: strange how we've gone from having one play-maker to suddenly having 4 in the side.

In terms of the next England side I'd like to see:

Marler (he's a much better player than he's shown here)
George (although I wouldn't be gutted with Youngs. I don't see the point of going back to Hartley)
Brookes (worth persisting with I think whilst we wait for Paul Hill or Sinkler to kick on)
Launchbury
Lawes (I still think these two provide the best balance of scrum, line out and other skills)
Burgess or Itoje or Robshaw (whoever is playing best, the latter not as Captain, although I wouldn't be surprised to see Wood)
Fraser (or Kvesic, or even Clark. Clifford is worth a look but won't play 7 for Quins)
Vunipola
Care/Youngs (interesting to see how Simpson and Robson do in the AP. Wiggleworth's time has gone I think)
Cipriani (in my vierw our most complete 10. Ford has time on his side).
May
Slade (lots of options now Barritt is surely finished. Let's start with Slade for the 6 Nations and see how he does)
Burrell (Joseph will play of course, but I like the extra bulk and Burrell's a better 13 than 12. A more conventional solution is Tuilagi)
Watson
Brown (I wondered about moving Watson to FB and Nowell to wing, but there is no need to rush this)

king_carlos wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:1-5 should be the biggest nastiest set-piece dominating pieces of work that we have.  They spend the game hitting rucks and mauls hard and pushing hard in the scrum and winning line-out ball.  If they get the ball in open play they run in a straight line HARD.  2 can throw in the lineout consistently.

Do we still have those types of hard nosed set piece dominating forwards available to us? We could pick some with a bit more in that area but I don't feel we have real brutes to call on at the moment to change things up.

We could pick locks such as Attwood or Slater who provide more ballast in the scrum. Even then, Attwood was given an opportunity and failed to grasp it. That said the scrum was stronger with him in the boiler room.

At hooker changes could be made with George a good option as a big lump who does the basics well.

At TH Davey Wilson and Dan Cole have been pretty even at scrum time for much of their wrestling over the TH shirt. I do think Wilson has been underused in this RWC when Cole has lost form however. Especially given Brookes can't last more than 15-20 minutes at test intensity.

At LH none of our options are really dominant scrummagers at current. Marler has been excellent at set piece and strong around the park until put under scrutiny at the world cup. Mako is a good carrier who has been much improved in the scrum this season. Neither had the best world cup but are worth persevering with unless someone like Waller can really push through.

1.Marler
2.George
3.Wilson
4.Launchbury
5.Slater

16.Youngs 17.Mako 18.Cole 19.Lawes

That could provide some more scrum ballast and heavy duty carrying around the ground plus big impact from the bench late on.

That looks a good front five if used correctly yeah. The starting five are used to marmilize the opoosition up front for 60-65 minutes, then the more mobile players arrive as the game breaks up a little.

It does seem like the players at the world cup have been asked to play a mobile game and that has reduced their set piece effectiveness, so in some ways it is less about new personnel (though some may help) and more about conditioning and tactics. The boys were in camp for a long time, they should have been at prime fitness, and they were, just the wrong type of fitness perhaps?

Cole for instance has long been a good scrummager. Perhaps he was just missing the shunt from the second row? Or maybe he had trimmed down for open play? Who knows.

Bassicaly we should return to the sort of side we slagged off previously.

Play a strong pack with backs that can play and attack.

It doesn't have to be the "All Backs" game that the All Blacks play.

We're not skilled to do that all game...but we do have our own skills and historical strengths. Lets play to them and try to progress.

A good strong pack but integrate a little more of the backs as we have done.

Play our own game...don't try to emulate the AB's etc.

Gooseberry wrote:Bassicaly we should return to the sort of side we slagged off previously.

Not quite.

Previously we had a strong front five yes, but we had little creativity in the backs and the back row wasn't great either.

Basically, back to the front five of the team we used to slag off, but with some creative backs (at least two play makers) and some rapid wingers.

screamingaddabs wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Bassicaly we should return to the sort of side we slagged off previously.

Not quite.

Previously we had a strong front five yes, but we had little creativity in the backs and the back row wasn't great either.

Basically, back to the front five of the team we used to slag off, but with some creative backs (at least two play makers) and some rapid wingers.

Absolutely....and some game changing flankers.....

Big strong pack - Needs working on
Creative backs - These are coming through
Rapid Wingers - We definitely have.
Game Changing Flankers - We have in the prem

In terms of big, hard nosed tight fight five forwards - Matt Symons could rapidly get himself into the selection frame if he continues his form from Super XV into the Jeff.

Those chances will only be magnified as well if Dave Rennie or Wayne Smith are tempted into the coaching set up. Personally I can't see either leaving the Chiefs at the moment. Though I'd be delighted if they did.

Don't forget , the forgotten men, Matt Garvey is only, what 27-28, mobile lump pushing 20 stone, tackles all game long, big ball carrier. Doesn't fit the SL mould of athletic lock or back row, but then neither does BV and he is picked. He would work well with BV or Morgan allowing a more mobile 7 in the Kvesic mould.

There seem to be plenty of other young guys out there, 18 stone plus who could be brought into the squad to learn off the old men like Lawes and Launchberry.

Matt Garvey isn't good enough to play Int rugby, we are getting desperate on here!

Garveys time has gone...but he SHOULD have been looked at a few years when he was playing outstanding and had the bonus of being huge.

I do think we need a couple of big units like him in the pack though. Do we have any that are good enough....that is the question.

Why's his time gone? Surely someone a bit older then 21 could bring something to this team?

He's in the 'potentially' list for the 6Ns isn't he? I suspect even a new manager won't make massive changes, one or two here and there. If they bring a Kvesic, Clifford, Armitage even I suspect that Wood or Robshaw will be the 6. If they keep Robshaw at 7 there's a few guys who could be considered at 6. Burgess, Haskell, Ewers, Garvey, Itoje, Slater, Croft even. A lot depends on what the (presumably) new man wants and how the guys play until the 6Ns.

Surely Garvey has to nail down a starter berth at Bath before being considered for 6Ns?

also as he has featured in the second row for them primarily, the list of people he needs to get ahead of is massive.

Yeah I think that's key. EVERYONE has to be starting for their club...playing consistant quality rugby then they will be looked at.

Ive never hid, im a big fan of Garvey and what a player like him can bring to your team...but I just wonder if others have overtaken him for the England scenario. Maybe a big season could change that.
LT You are right though....I think he's been mostly lock recently rather than 6. And the new "god" Itoje has that spot

Even at Bath Burgess could have nailed that 6 spot and be pulling up trees.

The one thing I do want to see is a few real genuine old school "tough men" brought back to the pack.

screamingaddabs wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Bassicaly we should return to the sort of side we slagged off previously.

Not quite.

Previously we had a strong front five yes, but we had little creativity in the backs and the back row wasn't great either.

Basically, back to the front five of the team we used to slag off, but with some creative backs (at least two play makers) and some rapid wingers.

I disagree that a typical first pick line up of Youngs, Flood, Foden, Flutey, Tuillagi, Armitage, Ashton, Foden was less creative than Youngs, Farrell, Burgess, JJ, May, Brown, Watson. All in the backs Lancaster and Johnson picked are pretty similar with the focus on power in the middle and speed combined with full back skills on the wings.

In the cas eof the backrow yep nothing much has changed ... trundling 8s, then flankers who arent one thing or the other for the most part (lets ignore taking an injured Moody to the last world cup) It would be nice if the likes of pocock, hooper and mccaw got selected for England, unfortunately they play for other teams. Its also a pity that rugby league forwards dont have to compete for the ball or we could try and buy one.


One big thing England need to learn is to stop trying to fix long term issues by importing players from outside the system and expecting them to deliver straight away. Lancaster was bought in on a ticket of continuing to develope his Saxons and age grade kids, and at the first opportunity fell for the lure of a rugby league forward to play center. On the recomendation of a rugby league player who was rubbish at 12 in Union. Hape, Vanikolo, Paul... how many new England manager will do this?

Add Barrie-Jon Mather to the list (to show SCW was just as guilty).

I do think the Burgess thing is mainly a big distraction, in that he did exactly what we expected of him and in that regard didn't fail (and was arguably the best of the 12's we actually have fielded this RWC). It is a failure of the system (and nerve?) that we didn't feel that there was an existing player who was part of the team that could fit the bill. Or rather we did, in Barritt. Only the Barritt we got was a pale shadow of mr reliable from even a year ago.

Burgess offered nothing bar straight up tackling, even Twelvetrees could have added more (probably not the tackling part though)

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Burgess offered nothing bar straight up tackling, even Twelvetrees could have added more (probably not the tackling part though)

Twelvetrees can tackle (most of the time?) although not going to be as heavy tackler as Burgess. There is a danger of always thinking of the replacements as playing to the best of their ability when chosen (like Barritt..). Twelvetrees playing at his best would have been a better option, but from what I have read here wasn't at his best last season.

In hindsight a better/more settled center combo might have got us over the hurdle with Wales but as things stood probably would not have made any difference with Australia (apart from being in a better mental place if we had beaten Wales). It would not have changed us into world beaters. Picking Burgess was a symptom of underlying issues but it wasn't the cause of our failure. That failure is much more down to lack of performance in the pack (other than the first half/60 mins vs Wales) and lack of nerve and leadership. In turn the performance in the pack is significantly influenced by the performance by the props and possibly the overall balance. Why the normally very good Marler and Cole should have performed so badly must reflect on their conditioning coming into the RWC, and why that was wrong is anyone's guess.

Gooseberry you say trundling no 8s but I think Billy has been great in the big games this season in the 6 nations and the RWC before his injury.

Definitely an upgrade on Easter.

Morgan IMO does not look like the same player in 2015 as he has been in the past but I think that's more to do with coming back from a long term injury.


You talk about the prop situation - Marler and Cole have started most games under Lancaster which doesn't allow alternatives to grow and stake a place. Marler and Cole is fine when they are in form but left England unable to come up with a Plan B with both off colour.

Same with Hartley and T.Youngs - Lancaster has put so much trust in both and with Hartley not involved in the RWC and T.Youngs not the biggest hooker in the world it left the hooker options low on alternatives.

It's important to get the balance between continuity and trying new options. Lancaster has struggled with continuity - some of it his own doing, some of it bad luck but I think he could have done better.

lostinwales it doesn't help the overall power and performance of a scrum and lineout if you're locks aren't the most powerful in the world either.

Parling was effectively in the pack to look after Youngs at the lineout, Wood's lineout ability was also seen as more important. Even then the English lineout wasn't as smooth as for example the Japanese one.

Of course putting in Parling and T.Youngs doesn't exactly help with the power of the front five.

We all know the balance of the pack isn't right.

Looking ahead, I think the following from the RWC squad have seen the end of their international careers:
Webber - better younger alternatives
Wilson - Getting on. Brookes seems to be preferred and Thomas has been OK
Parling - shoring up the lineout is not sufficient, and he's getting on
Haskell - Mr Inconsistent
Easter - Well, he's 94 years old
Wigglesworth - see Webber
Goode - see Webber

Not sure about Barritt - needs to show a return to form and fitness if we are to keep him in the side based on his defensive strengths while living with his relative weakness in attack. Young options - I like Stephenson at Northampton but do wonder if he's big and powerful enough especially if between Ford and JJ.

As for Burgess, I don't want to see him in the back line again. His abilities make him much better suited to being a 6 or 8 (given time to work on his skills at the base of the scrum).

Even with a new coach I'm not anticipating wholesale change - we have a few problem positions and unfortunately went into the tournament with a few players (Launchbury, Morgan, Barritt) rusty after injuries.

Loosehead - Marler and Mako will still be there or thereabouts for the EPS. A fully fit Corbs would be a big asset, but may be wishful thinking.

Hooker - T Youngs for me is the definition of an impact sub. Don't want Hartley back - not that he's a bad player (bar his discipline), but it's a spot where we can look to some of the younger talent. George would appear to be first in line.

TH - Cole, Brookes and perhaps Thomas for now. Need to get the Dan Cole back that we had before his neck problems.

2nd row - Launchbury should be first name on the teamsheet, and Lawes is a good foil. Time to blood some new big and nasty back-up guys rather than more athletic players like Kruis

8 - Ben and Billy are beth very good. A new 3rd choice needed.

Flanker - Bigger issues with the balance. Robshaw and Wood are both good and sometimes very good all rounders, but as a pair are too similar. Burgess or Itoje at 6 could add bulk and power with Woodshaw competing for the 7 shirt, or they could play 6 with a more specialist 7 (Kvesic?). Personally I don't want Steffon Armitage - yes, he does well at club level in France, but behind a mammoth pack. Also, he's not the future and didn't exactly stand out when he did get a chance for England.

9 - Youngs and Care are fine. Again, 3rd choice is up for grabs

10 - Ford, Farrel, Cips, Slade. Don't see an issue there.

12 - The big conundrum. Several promising youngsters (Stephenson, Devoto, Hill) in the AP, plus the option of seeing how Slade goes here. Or back to the guys previously tried with limited success (12trees, Burrell, Eastmond)?

13 - If and when Manu gets back to playing, this should be a position of strength, with either Manu's power or JJ's elusiveness. Given a bit of time and practice of his passing, Manu at 12 and JJ at 13 could be an interesting combination.

Wingers - I'd currently go with Nowell and Watson, but there are plenty of decent alternatives.

Full-back: Brown probably has another couple of years in him, and ultimately Watson will end up here.

Captain? I'd give it to Launchbury and see how he goes.

Looking at the figures it is interesting to see Stuart Lancaster has used 8 different hookers whilst he has been in charge of England. So is he guilty of looking at too many players, or did he invest too much in Hartley and Youngs?

Gray
Mears
Cowan-Dickie
George
Paice
Webber
Hartley
Youngs

One of my criticisms of Stuart Lancaster is that he did not ever settle on an England backline and give them the chance to play together and the freedom to play an attacking all round game.  As soon as things got tough, out went Ford and other skill players and in came the safer players - Farrell, Barritt, Burgess, etc.

I think you can play around with the names, but until you give a backline the opportunity to develop they will never succeed, whatever combination is used.

nlpnlp wrote:Looking at the figures it is interesting to see Stuart Lancaster has used 8 different hookers whilst he has been in charge of England.  So is he guilty of looking at too many players, or did he invest too much in Hartley and Youngs?

Gray
Mears
Cowan-Dickie
George
Paice
Webber
Hartley
Youngs

With a specialist position, when the replacement always comes on, there will often be a lot of names looked at.

NZ have had 8 hookers in the same time, ditto Wales.

nlpnlp wrote:One of my criticisms of Stuart Lancaster is that he did not ever settle on an England backline and give them the chance to play together and the freedom to play an attacking all round game.  As soon as things got tough, out went Ford and other skill players and in came the safer players - Farrell, Barritt, Burgess, etc.

I think you can play around with the names, but until you give a backline the opportunity to develop they will never succeed, whatever combination is used.

This is something that has been covered a great deal. To repeat what has gone before then yes he has been guilty of this but he has also been unlucky with injuries and people falling out of form at the wrong times. With all the 'possibles' out there you can't ever win unless the guys you put faith in keep their form and keep winning. If they had not got broken we would probably have been going into this RWC with a Barritt/Tuilagi center combo with 3 years of playing together behind them, and one of JJ, 36, Eastmond etc sitting on the bench as back up.

If Dave Wilson is playing like the real powerful prop he is...then why discard him? Cole is massively out of form and has been for quite some time now.

The young pretenders are just that...young pretenders. Until one stands up and makes that spot theirs..i would give it to Davy to really solid up that front row.

We have to be careful not to throw players away simply because of an age number.

Geordiefalcon the problem is unless you play these "young pretenders" you don't know what they can do.

Lancaster started Ford in the 6 nations at 10 and for the most part he did well. Same with Joseph.

Now these "young pretenders" wouldn't have got a look in if Lancaster's favoured 10 and 13 weren't injured.

It's not easy but you have to get the timing when to play new players right.

The warm ups and the Fiji game were a perfect opportunity to try out some new options but Lancaster wasted the opportunity to try out the likes of George as a starter, Ksevic and Itoje.

nlpnlp

Yes 8 different hookers but how many minutes has each got?

It looks impressive when you say that Lancaster started 4 hookers in the warm ups but still the majority was T.Youngs.

T.Youngs has played almost every minute at 2 in the RWC. Webber has barely been given gametime despite being on the bench. George will probably only get a small bit of gametime vs Urugay if he's lucky.

It's strange. Lancaster has been both reckless and conservative but hasn't yet got the right balance.

I think Ford has always been considered as the future, just being small and injured its taken him longer to become established than the more physical Farrell.

Ford hasn't played well so you could understand him getting dropped for Farrell.

This "try new players out" continually is an absolute crock of balls. At what point before a World Cup do you try and build a cohesive squad/team?

If it was up to some of you on here, we'd have a different 15 every game.

There's always someone better not playing.

Sgt Pooly

There were plenty of players who were cohesive but squad members weren't successfully integrated.

It's important then building a strong cohesive squad that you focus on everyone - not just the XV and 23.

England IMO relied too much on individual players and when those players were either injured, absent, banned there wasn't the answer. There should have been.

England badly missed Hartley but wouldn't have if Lancaster trusted a hooker other than T.Youngs to perform.

When Joseph got injured, there was no decent alternative, instead Lancaster forced a newly capped Burgess into the 12 shirt, shunted Barritt to 13 and Farrell to 10.

When Billy got injured vs Wales, England lost their biggest impact player, Lancaster couldn't feel the void.

When B.Youngs was injured vs Wales, where was the impetus? The balance was all wrong with Wigglesworth,Ford,Farrell,Barritt. 3 uncreative players and 2 out of position.

Against Australia, May got injured then you had the farcical Wigglesworth,Ford,Joseph,Farrell,Burgess,Watson,Brown combo.


One reason England won the 2003 RWC was because they trusted the squad and built it.

GeordieFalcon wrote:If Dave Wilson is playing like the real powerful prop he is...then why discard him?

He isn't, and hasn't for quite some time. Wilson was rushed back into the team when not fit in 2014 when cole had his neck surgery. In the end Wilson succumbed to another injury, having done well but not amazingly, and Cole rushed back too early.

For much of last season the pairing of James and Wilson were very much second best to Auterac and Thomas at Bath.

England won in 2003 because they had a World Class pack, and a world class goal kicker.

Pure and simple.

End of.

The 1999 squad had a more equal spread of caps to this one rather than the 2003 version though. And you could easily point post 2003 as there being limited options for some of the key people missing. How did 2004 go for us?

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's always someone better not playing.

Exactly, there's no pleasing some people.

Me included. They should have picked Slade at 12, Burgess at 6. They're idiots!

Bar Burgess, I don't think you could argue with the squad selection.

The guys left out were due to discipline issues so that's by the by. It's SL match day selections that went wrong.

Yet I would argue with some selections. Personally I would have gone with twelvetrees, Barritt, Joseph and Slade. Some would have picked Cipriani, above beshocked would have taken Itoje. Waldrom could be considered a touch unlucky. Overall are any of the players that are constantly mentioned that much better or worse than the ones included? Not really and that for me is where all the constant calls for rotation come from as there is generally normally someone who is a similar standard of player who is outside the squad but in better form.

Londontiger not that straightforward.

Hill was injured until the semis. Losing a player of his calibre was absorbed by England.

Catt helped turn the tide for England off the bench in the 2003 RWC too.

The 2003 RWC was far from plain sailing.

no 7 & 1/2 to be honest sometimes caps can be a bit of a red herring.

Some players might have more caps but it doesn't mean they are necessarily playing better than their peers.

Carter for example now isn't in the same calibre of form he was in 2005.

True. But then it comes back to the point you could conceivably have a different 15 each game for England.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yet I would argue with some selections. Personally I would have gone with twelvetrees, Barritt, Joseph and Slade. Some would have picked Cipriani, above beshocked would have taken Itoje. Waldrom could be considered a touch unlucky. Overall are any of the players that are constantly mentioned that much better or worse than the ones included? Not really and that for me is where all the constant calls for rotation come from as there is generally normally someone who is a similar standard of player who is outside the squad but in better form.

The problem is you'll never know unless you give players an opportunity.

Sgt Pooly has criticised Itoje for the last few months, saying he's not good enough, would never make the 50 man RWC squad, Itoje then put in a good run of form in the last few games of the club season. He showed good form which proved why I have been rating him.

Unfortunately Lancaster's lack of trust in Itoje means that we don't know whether Itoje would have helped England or not. I still believe he could have added something different to the squad based on his end of club form and the potential I have seen from him.

You talk about player's being similar. I don't think Itoje is similar - he's a 20 year old making huge strides. I have watched Kruis and Itoje - obviously both being at the same club and even though Kruis now has more international experience I think that Itoje is the player that England should have backed in the RWC.

I guess it's a blessing in disguise that Itoje has avoided the poisoned chalice of a failed RWC but quite clearly Saracens have high hopes for him.

In the club warm ups Itoje has been Saracens captain which shows he clearly being developed to take that role.

Itoje of course a work in progress but England need to back players like him if IMO they want to emerge from mediocrity.

Everyone rates Itoje beshocked, just most people felt that he wasn't the best choice at the world cup for either lock or 6 and that he'll go onto be a top class player as he continues to develop. Don't think I've ever read anyone say he's poor.

Everyone can point to a player Itoje for example and say he should have been given a chance. Thing is there's another guy someone else picks, Ewers, Garvey Burgess etc who says they should have been given a chance. They clearly can't all be given one. It comes down to personal opion on who should have gone. Out of those players none of them could really cover 7 I don't think, Haskell and Clarke probably could. I can see the reason Lancaster went with them even if I don't agree.

no 7 & 1/2 yes arguments can be made for other players agreed but quite clearly Lancaster's selection didn't work.

It's not hindsight as I questioned his selection before the RWC. Well as I said I would have at least tried him in the warm ups. Wouldn't have cut him so early.

Plus of course I mentioned Ksevic too.

You mention Garvey -he's not a player trusted by Lancaster, Burgess even at 6 would still have had the lack of inexperience in rugby union.

Even I can see why Lancaster went with the options he did but I still believe it was wrong.

To be honest as long as England sack Lancaster and co - bring in a top class coaching team and start picking players like Ksevic,Slade,Itoje,George etc then I will be happy.

I think Lancaster will resign on Sunday. Then the merrygoround starts in regards coaching. Who knows what players the new guy will like. Wheover they are there'll be others who don't get a fair crack of the whip and the next set of youngsters.

Probably no 7 & 1/2.

To be honest I expect I'll be disappointed because my list of who I want as the new coach is pretty short!

Wayne Smith or Eddie Jones!

With coaches like Baxter,King,Gustard or Borthwick as deputies.

"Sgt Pooly has criticised Itoje for the last few months, saying he's not good enough, would never make the 50 man RWC squad, Itoje then put in a good run of form in the last few games of the club season. He showed good form which proved why I have been rating him."

Not true.

I said he's not as good as the players selected which is still the case.

If we can get past the too small to be an international lock/ too big to be an international 6 thing for Itoje then he potentially has a huge future. But at 20 years old as a forward you can see why, maybe, he didn't quite make it into the final squad.