England Squad for the 6N 2016

First topic message reminder :

Well, the dust is settling on our early exit, time to concentrate on the next disappointment.

We obviously have no idea who the Head Coach or team will be at this current point, but we can take a stab at the potential squad going into the 6N.

2 games into the AP season, who's looking impressive? Who can come in under the radar and steal a spot? Are any of the disappointing WC squad going to grab the bull by the horns and actually impress! Who should be captain? What could or starting 23 be? Do we starting blooding for 2019 now?

yappysnap wrote:I watched the AP highlights and Nowell caught my eye, he was very good for his two tries but at the same time, he looked so slow on that intercept!

He was caught embarrassingly quickly by the covering player and yes it was a good hand off, but at the same time the tackle was mince. He's never going to get tackled that poorly at Int level (any one remember B Smiths tracking back and tackling of Manu(?)).

I think if we have Brown at 15 we may not be able to play Nowell as they're both a little slow for back three players.

Across that distance you'll often see guys get caught up due to how much quicker you run without a ball in hand than with ball in hand. Plus Tom Fowlie who chased him down is a pacy centre and had a good angle on him.

I'd agree that I have reservations about Nowell being the back three with Brown due to pace - I am a big advocate of express pace on the wings though.

Poor cover tackling is something that has struck me a few times in only a couple of weeks of Prem action. Players simply going high at the stupidest moments when tracking back to make a covering tackle. Ford had a really poor one on James Short when they played Exeter.

Wade also had another terrible effort on Nick Evans after an unfortunate bounce from a kick through.

Maybe he's playing the long game with him. He is young and too many changes could have a negative effect maybe?

I do wonder if coaches would take this approach of continually playing the older proven performers if there was no relegation. A lot more room to play with the squad if there wasn't and it would lead to better player management.

Welsh was excellent last week so I can see the thoughts. Wilson will get plenty of game time this season, he looks much stronger.

I'm hoping Sinckler can push on this season. Having Jones there should help him no end.

king_carlos wrote:

yappysnap wrote:I watched the AP highlights and Nowell caught my eye, he was very good for his two tries but at the same time, he looked so slow on that intercept!

He was caught embarrassingly quickly by the covering player and yes it was a good hand off, but at the same time the tackle was mince. He's never going to get tackled that poorly at Int level (any one remember B Smiths tracking back and tackling of Manu(?)).

I think if we have Brown at 15 we may not be able to play Nowell as they're both a little slow for back three players.

Across that distance you'll often see guys get caught up due to how much quicker you run without a ball in hand than with ball in hand. Plus Tom Fowlie who chased him down is a pacy centre and had a good angle on him.

I'd agree that I have reservations about Nowell being the back three with Brown due to pace - I am a big advocate of express pace on the wings though.

Poor cover tackling is something that has struck me a few times in only a couple of weeks of Prem action. Players simply going high at the stupidest moments when tracking back to make a covering tackle. Ford had a really poor one on James Short when they played Exeter.

Wade also had another terrible effort on Nick Evans after an unfortunate bounce from a kick through.

I thought the same thing about Nowell's intercept, until somewhere on these boards I read that the lad who chased him down is one of the fastest in the league. His name completely escapes me, but many a player will be made to look slow by him!

Ah fair enough! Really quick but can't tackle...

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm hoping Sinckler can push on this season. Having Jones there should help him no end.

I think he will, he was good against Tigers when he came on. Last season he had the talent, but let himself get riled way too easily, if he can cool it a little but keep the physicality and big hits in his game then he'll be very good. One thing he has over a lot of the other young props at the moment (other then size) is he seems a bit nastier. If he can control that and keep it on the legal side then he could be very useful.

yappysnap wrote:Ah fair enough! Really quick but can't tackle...

Indeed. Can't have it all!

Yeash Scott Wilson and Sinkler are the two TH Hopes at the moment.

As for Ewers, Sgt I appreciate he might not be electric. It may well be that he is not good enough for international level...but I just cant help feeling he should have been looked at in a game environment.

However you cant look at everyone so...guess we'll just see what happens.

I just hope it doesn't go on forever. We're going into round 3 already so potentially if its a new manager he's missing valuable time to watch players.

Ewers was looked at I think GF. Pretty sure he played 2/3 Saxons games and was less than impressive.

I'm sure a good preseason has done him good, be interesting to see if he's improved on Sunday.

In the first A/P round, Ewers looked quite useful against Bath.  Of course you can never unless he is tried.

cb wrote:In the first A/P round, Ewers looked quite useful against Bath.  Of course you can never unless he is tried.

I guess this is where opinion comes into play. Watching that game I thought Waldrom was Exeter's best back rower.

Waldrom is the embodiment of a great club player. He's usually one of Exeters best. Ewers may be the same, but he might change.

A season or two ago we were all talking about Ewers, Dickson (Saints 8), Fearns and Garvey. It just shows how things can change that none of them seem even close to Int selection now.

Now it's Itoje, Clifford, Fraser and Beumont who are being talked up, I wonder if in two seasons time any of them will manage to have kicked on?

Very much doubt the Beaumont will make it. Too lanky to be back row, too slight to be lock.

Itoje will have to be a lock (just too slow I feel to be an international 6) but with lack of inches cannot afford to get too heavy for lineout duties.

Fraser I am worried will be another Tom Rees.

Clifford atm is in a long line of back rowers who have made promising starts to their career - perhaps unlike so many he will kick on.

Beaumont seems a long way off our other options at 8, I just can't see it.

Really not sure where Itoje will end up. He seems small for a lock but the stats have him at 6'5"??? He could be the line out option we need at 6, he's a mobile as Wood is and probably a better carrier. It would allow us to play to lumps in the engine room.

LondonTiger wrote:Very much doubt the Beaumont will make it. Too lanky to be back row, too slight to be lock.

Itoje will have to be a lock (just too slow I feel to be an international 6) but with lack of inches cannot afford to get too heavy for lineout duties.

Fraser I am worried will be another Tom Rees.

Clifford atm is in a long line of back rowers who have made promising starts to their career - perhaps unlike so many he will kick on.

Yep once upon a time it was all about Rees, Narroway, Haskell and Crane. Again look how those careers panned out.

Seems a massive drop off rate at backrow when you think about it!

The guys who push on are often those without much lost time due to injury.

Could Launchbury make it at No8? He has size and appears to have good hands and a turn of speed. No problems in the lineout either. As we all know - Croft is good in the lineout. (Blinking useless everywhere else).

Surely we have enough 8's?

Launchbury at 8??

No just leave him at lock where he could become one of the best in the world.

Whats the preferred lineout stats. 3 jumpers or 2 with a reasonable one like say if Robshaw was at 6?

1 Marler
2 Hartley / George
3 Cole
4 Launchbury
5 Kitchener
6 Robshaw or Wood if you want a lineout option.
7 Fraser / Kvesic / Clifford
8 Billy / Ben

Watched the double header today and I have to say I was impressed with both Haskell and Launchbury's performances in a losing side. It seemed as though Haskell had been given the task of simply tackling and carrying and what a difference it made.

Thought Cole went well too in the set piece which is promising.

I wasn't too impressed with Daly or Wade in defence though and I thought they were responsible for a lot of the line breaks that Leicester had.

From Exeter, Slade was very impressive again. Very good skillset in attack creating a lot and his defence was to drawer.

Just got half way through the quins game as well and I from what I've seen so far Attwood has had a good game, lots of strong carries tying in defenders, and Marler, apart from a 5 min spell after a knock has really had the upper hand on Wilson at scrum time. A couple of nice carries too.

Also been impressed with Rokoduguni, very physical and looking for work in phase play

In a way we do have some reasonable players, but it just seems they have not be used or played properly.  In the above mails, several players are mentioned as performing well but once they appear in an England shirt everything seems to fade.

Daly & Wade just don't cut the mustard for me, you can't be that poor in defence and play International rugby.

I was impressed with Cole, Haskell & Launchbury over the weekend. Ewers looked average in a good Exeter win, just too slow and cumbersome imo. Slade looked neat without doing too much, he didn't really need to against our backs.

I don't follow the Jeff in sufficient detail to be better informed, but can someone fill me in on Kitchener?

Everyone here seems to really like him but at the moment someone suggests he plays for England, there seem to be a wall of pooh-pooh'ing. What is good about him and what does he need to do before getting an England start?

On a related note, received wisdom had it for the past couple of years that Launchbury and Lawes were England's clear cut future in the boiler room. Why has that changed recently (if it has)?

None of this is wumming incidentally - I am trying to educate myself.

Lawes has dropped off George, he's just not adding the same amount of work around the park and seems too lightweight.

Kitchener is a big lump and a good line out lock. I think he receives a lot of plaudits as he's quite noticeable in the loose. He's fast and carries well which is rare of an English lock. I'm unsure of his tight work, it might need a bit of work but he's a good lock. He's been skirting around the Saxons for a while now, big things were expected 3/4 years ago but he hasn't had the best of luck with injuries at key times.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Lawes has dropped off George, he's just not adding the same amount of work around the park and seems too lightweight.

Kitchener is a big lump and a good line out lock. I think he receives a lot of plaudits as he's quite noticeable in the loose. He's fast and carries well which is rare of an English lock. I'm unsure of his tight work, it might need a bit of work but he's a good lock. He's been skirting around the Saxons for a while now, big things were expected 3/4 years ago but he hasn't had the best of luck with injuries at key times.

Cheers Sarge. Interesting to see how the lock position has changed.

George, its a very complicated issue the second row which is why it causes a lot of debate. Take Lawes' demise as an example, how can someone who last year was seen as one of the premier locks in the game now been seen to drop from everyone's suggested squads? There are a number of contributing factors in this instance and not all of them are Lawes' fault.

Lawes was employed as the lineout caller in 2014 and formed pretty successful partnerships with both Launchbury and Attwood. Both the lineout and scrum went well throughout the year, getting better towards the end with a near 100% return in the autumn. At this stage all is good.

Come 6Ns he gets injured and, with Launchbury also out, England are forced into a major shuffle in the engine room. Lawes and Launchbury then start together in the French warm up and the previously very productive lineout which he's managed every so well for over a year falls apart. The scrum, a previous strong point for England falls apart.

Why? Because of the insistence to play a hooker who is exceptional in the loose, but cannot provide the basic skill set at set piece on the international stage. As a result, previously good set piece operators are made to look distinctly average.

The result? Parling gets drafted in for Launchbury and takes over lineout responsibilities which under powers the England scrum even further. Wood comes in over Haskell and we lose another ball carrying option in the tight channels. Lawes, whos been seen as the premier lineout forward going into the tournament, and has been conditioning himself as such, is now asked to play the enforcer. Subsequently we get outmuscled, Lawes appears to loose form and confidence and people now see him as a weak link in the engine room where previously he wasn't.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Lawes isn't completely to blame but there is more to it than simply saying that he isn't good enough. Likewise, I also don't want to come across as blaming solely Youngs. He is an international standard player in the loose, no getting away from that, excellent in the carry, a great tackler, good at the breakdown, but he is not an international standard hooker at set piece. He struggles to throw past 2 at the lineout severely limiting options and he struggles to hook in the scrum, leaves his props isolated and as a result unbalances and under powers the scrum as a whole, something you can get away with at club level but not at international.

For me I still think Lawes is a good player and will feature again for England. He does need to put on a bit of weight and he does need to concentrate on being a lineout lock, he is not an enforcer.

Reference the other options? People look at the failings of the RWC and the key lesson is we lacked any sort of platform to play off. They see the set piece as a weakness, which it undoubtedly was, and look at someone like Kitchener and Attwood who both are big units, strong in the scrum and good lineout forwards and say that's the direction we should go down. And I agree.

But another thing I think we need to look at is how we get the best out of the players we have. Its no good trying to play like the ABs if you haven't got the players with the right skillset in the first place. What are our strengths, both nationally and as players, identify how we can get the best out of the players' strengths, and build a game plan around that. These are the players we've got, there aren't many better ones out there so go with that.

I know that was a bit long winded but its an emotive subject for me.

George Carlin wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Lawes has dropped off George, he's just not adding the same amount of work around the park and seems too lightweight.

Kitchener is a big lump and a good line out lock. I think he receives a lot of plaudits as he's quite noticeable in the loose. He's fast and carries well which is rare of an English lock. I'm unsure of his tight work, it might need a bit of work but he's a good lock. He's been skirting around the Saxons for a while now, big things were expected 3/4 years ago but he hasn't had the best of luck with injuries at key times.

Cheers Sarge. Interesting to see how the lock position has changed.

I also think our players are changing.  Lawes, for instance, is still a young man, but has a lot of miles.  And today's miles are much toughter than they used to be.

Very good post JamesMac. And very true actually.

Will be interesting to see how it goes.

jamesandimac wrote:George, its a very complicated issue the second row which is why it causes a lot of debate.  Take Lawes' demise as an example, how can someone who last year was seen as one of the premier locks in the game now been seen to drop from everyone's suggested squads?  There are a number of contributing factors in this instance and not all of them are Lawes' fault.

Lawes was employed as the lineout caller in 2014 and formed pretty successful partnerships with both Launchbury and Attwood.  Both the lineout and scrum went well throughout the year, getting better towards the end with a near 100% return in the autumn.  At this stage all is good.

Come 6Ns he gets injured and, with Launchbury also out, England are forced into a major shuffle in the engine room.  Lawes and Launchbury then start together in the French warm up and the previously very productive lineout which he's managed every so well for over a year falls apart.  The scrum, a previous strong point for England falls apart.

Why?  Because of the insistence to play a hooker who is exceptional in the loose, but cannot provide the basic skill set at set piece on the international stage.  As a result, previously good set piece operators are made to look distinctly average.

The result?  Parling gets drafted in for Launchbury and takes over lineout responsibilities which under powers the England scrum even further.  Wood comes in over Haskell and we lose another ball carrying option in the tight channels.  Lawes, whos been seen as the premier lineout forward going into the tournament, and  has been conditioning himself as such, is now asked to play the enforcer.  Subsequently we get outmuscled, Lawes appears to loose form and confidence and people now see him as a weak link in the engine room where previously he wasn't.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Lawes isn't completely to blame but there is more to it than simply saying that he isn't good enough.  Likewise, I also don't want to come across as blaming solely Youngs.  He is an international standard player in the loose, no getting away from that, excellent in the carry, a great tackler, good at the breakdown, but he is not an international standard hooker at set piece.  He struggles to throw past 2 at the lineout severely limiting options and he struggles to hook in the scrum, leaves his props isolated and as a result unbalances and under powers the scrum as a whole, something you can get away with at club level but not at international.

For me I still think Lawes is a good player and will feature again for England.  He does need to put on a bit of weight and he does need to concentrate on being a lineout lock, he is not an enforcer.  

Reference the other options?  People look at the failings of the RWC and the key lesson is we lacked any sort of platform to play off.  They see the set piece as a weakness, which it undoubtedly was, and look at someone like Kitchener and Attwood who both are big units, strong in the scrum and good lineout forwards and say that's the direction we should go down.  And I agree.

But another thing I think we need to look at is how we get the best out of the players we have.  Its no good trying to play like the ABs if you haven't got the players with the right skillset in the first place.  What are our strengths, both nationally and as players, identify how we can get the best out of the players' strengths, and build a game plan around that.  These are the players we've got, there aren't many better ones out there so go with that.

I know that was a bit long winded but its an emotive subject for me.

I really appreciate that response.

Agree with all of that, the conditioning pre RWC and subsequent need for players to be marathon runners rather then sprinters meant that guys like Lawes, Cole and Vunipola all lost a lot of what made them good in the first place.

Been some interesting performances so far .

Slade look solid...nothing fireworks against us. Just did the basics very well. Didnnt butcher offloads etc like Twelvetrees does. And he put in one bone shuddering tackle. He might be slight but theres nothing wrong with his defence.

Croft stats suggest he's been in good form.

Itoje had another good outing. First half - 2 turnovers, stole lineout ball etc...

Marler was strong.

We should start a player watch thread.

The whole thing with the pack is balance. They as an entity has a job to do and you need to pick it so that it can do that job. You also need to be able to deal with injuries. The 'easiest' way of doing this is to use the traditional roles. That was if your openside is injured, replace him like for like. Same for your 4 or 5 (note these are different). In that case you may well be ignoring very good players because they don't fit your cookie-cutter template. But if you do go off piste you've got to account for that. Back when our pack seemed to be working we had a hardworking, tackling backrow and frontrow that were demons at the breakdown (Cole, Corbisiero and Hartley). Cole and Corbisiero were injured and replaced by others that didn't do the same at the breakdown (and were arguably stronger elsewhere). But our pack didn't change around them and now it's suddenly out of balance. People are trying to do jobs they're not used to (or perhaps just not good at) and they start to fail at the things they ARE good at.

That's my superficial thought on the matter.

And I think your spot on Hammer.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Croft stats suggest he's been in good form.

GF - Croft has been playing well yes. None of the fireworks he is capable of yet when he comes flying onto the 13s shoulder offering the extra man in the outside channels. He has been good in the line-out, run some nice support lines and been getting stuck into rucks all over the park. He currently seems to be looking to use his pace to be the first man to the breakdown more often which is what many have wanted from him in the past.

He hasn't been exceptional but given how many injuries he's had it's been good to see him getting stuck into the physical side of things. Unless he puts in some eye catching performances during the ECC I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't get back into the England fold however.

Croft got through a ton of work against Wasps. Slade made some really good wide passes, he seems the opposite of Twelvetrees where 36 rushes everything and as often as not botches it in his haste, Slade takes his time and does it just right.

Looks like it's all but confirmed that Burgess is off back to NRL in the biggest league deal ever.

Where have you heard the Geordie? Not seen anything online.

It would be a great shame if he did go, there was potentially a very good rugby player there and he didn't show up too bad in the games he played, even if he was new to the game and hadn't settled on a position.

Its coming up all over James.
I'm not concerned to be honest. I think we can cover it...we have some good players.

And even Robshaw should still be considered for the 6 spot

wouldn't suprise me if Burgess went back to RL, afterall he was made a scapegoat by some

nathan wrote:wouldn't suprise me if Burgess went back to RL, afterall he was made a scapegoat by some

And he ultimately failed. He's struggled to adapt and has not been the success he thought he would be. To give union not even a year and run back to RL with your tail between your legs show the balls of the bloke imo.

I thought he would have stuck round for this challenge but not sure it demonstrates a lack of guts. You'd be tempted to go back surely, massive amount of money great challenge in itself, being adored by the fans. Very tempting. Given enough time I'm convenced the guy could be a great at any sport.

Apologies if this has already been covered (I confess I haven't ploughed through almost 300 comments so far) but has anyone suggested Robshaw might fall on his sword and 'retire' from International Rugby if Lancaster goes and it's apparent his successor will be a 'fresh start, new broom'? (eg likes the look of Kvesic and Armitage alongsaide Bill/Ben in a new back row)

If so, has anyone a clue as to who the next captain might be? Frankly, I haven't.

Robshaw should give up his captaincy...no doubts about that.

However he should definitely still be considered at 6. He has everything you need and is a proven top class performer.

Especially when we have the following scenario:

Haskell - Inconsistent. Plays well for Wasps seemingly given basic instructions...tackle and carry!
Ewers - Bruising 6. He dropped off last season mind and unproven at this level - who knows.
Matt Garvey - That ship has probably sailed. And tends to play more lock.
Chris Robshaw - Should not be captain but could be very influential as a 6.
Tom Wood - Think we've seen the best of him.

Others?
Clifford - Where will he end up - 6 or 7 or does it not matter.
Croft - Seems so fragile, can he stay fit?
Itoje - Personally I see him as a lock not a 6. He's playing very well at lock aswell!
Burgess - Likely to be back in NRL
Mark Wilson - My club favourite but probably not international level.

Any others ive missed or are coming through?

Think you could still throw Clark in there as well but he'll never be a popular choice and there's more potential and better short term answers as well.

Not fully endorsing these 6's but other names would be: -

Gibson
Fearns

but what about playing Launchbury there?

No. No way. Not a chance. No.

Why do people keep mentioning Launchbury for 6???

No...let him become world class at lock.

Yes 7.5 I forgot about Clark.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

nathan wrote:wouldn't suprise me if Burgess went back to RL, afterall he was made a scapegoat by some

And he ultimately failed. He's struggled to adapt and has not been the success he thought he would be. To give union not even a year and run back to RL with your tail between your legs show the balls of the bloke imo.

He hasn't struggled. He's adapted very well. Not enough for the international game, but then we pay head coaches a handsome amount of money to make that decision not him. As for being the success he thought he would be, where did that come from? The only thing I've seen him say is that he was looking forward to the change, has no real expectations and (later on) he was finding some aspects hard to come to grips with (lineout was specifically mentioned I think).

I would be more than happy for him to go back to league to get away from comments like these. Certainly if he's not enjoying it.

Re: England Post Mortem
Post by GeordieFalcon on Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:51 am

PS....

My other question....are we turning our pack into a lightweight softie....in an attempt to be "athletic"

Wheres the hardnosed forwards who wont take a step backwards......they're missing!

Ground hog day...