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?

If, he is still playing i would like to see Yarde on one wing and Wade on the other.

Is Wade still playing or is he injured?

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Props that can work with Hartley and be solid suddenly come apart when Youngs gets on, it can't just be they are getting tired as so are their opposite numbers.

His lineout work is also very poor when he doesn't have the Leicester jumpers, Hartley works well with Lawes and Wood, but is still solid with just about any other combo.

I can't argue his loose play is very good, except for his passing, as an ex-centre you would think that would be a strong point. I can only think that he is over developed to try and bulk up to weight and this restricts his movement

Is that the Hartley that always stands up? Lol

His line out work isn't very poor, I get annoyed with these comments. Yes he's had issues there, but not to the extent people make out.

Again you are looking at a few instances of bad passing and making a conclusion. He can pass very well as was evidenced in his last game against stade.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think too much is made of his set piece at international level, he's generally fine. Anyhow nobody will change their mind on it.

I don't know how you can think it's fine tbh but this is obviously your opinion and I'll respect that.

A question though.....is "fine" ok from any England player at their core task?

Good then. Too much is made of it. He'll be battling it out and a very serious contender for any England coach. He can be part of a great scrummaging side with a great lineout. We don't really have any great scrummaging props at the moment, nearest being Mullan and Wilson (who's not that great for me to be honest). We've not really gone for great lineout locks.

I said fine as everyone said we were about to have a horrific time in the setpieces in the WC; didn't happen bar the Aussies getting away with more 'clever' play before getting caught out again.

eh?! We went from pretty much matching anyone to a bunch of big girls' blouses in a few short months. Set-piece was a stand out weakness. I've never seen it so weak in all the time I watched England. To reiterate our set-piece was unacceptably poor. I could go on...

It was poor and it wasn't just youngs in the scrum, Both Cole and marler were poor.

I'd like to see Yarde back in the EPS and a choice of Yarde, Wade, Roko in the wings would be interesting.

Well if you look at the England pack you wouldn't say that it's exactly big and powerful. Lawes and Parling as a partnership that's going to provide an engine for the front row. Where's the powerful enforcer? A little extra weight from the flankers might have helped as well.

Going forward we need Slater or Attwood in there too add weight to the pack. Ideally we'll see Kitchener return to fitness as he's a classy line out operator who's also 19 stone.

nathan wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Props that can work with Hartley and be solid suddenly come apart when Youngs gets on, it can't just be they are getting tired as so are their opposite numbers.

His lineout work is also very poor when he doesn't have the Leicester jumpers, Hartley works well with Lawes and Wood, but is still solid with just about any other combo.

I can't argue his loose play is very good, except for his passing, as an ex-centre you would think that would be a strong point. I can only think that he is over developed to try and bulk up to weight and this restricts his movement

Is that the Hartley that always stands up? Lol

His line out work isn't very poor, I get annoyed with these comments. Yes he's had issues there, but not to the extent people make out.

Again you are looking at a few instances of bad passing and making a conclusion. He can pass very well as was evidenced in his last game against stade.

Yes it is poor. He rarely gives his jumpers clean ball which to me means his throwing his poor. He over throws, under throws, off centre etc etc....in fact it's easier to say he hardly ever throws a clean dart.

He struggles to hook and his scrummaging is also poor.

I'm glad it winds somebody up as it winds me up when people say he's good enough at his hookers job to play for England......he's dross.

He's clearly not. None of these players we discuss in regards to England are even anywhere near under average.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Well if you look at the England pack you wouldn't say that it's exactly big and powerful. Lawes and Parling as a partnership that's going to provide an engine for the front row. Where's the powerful enforcer? A little extra weight from the flankers might have helped as well.

Going forward we need Slater or Attwood in there too add weight to the pack. Ideally we'll see Kitchener return to fitness as he's a classy line out operator who's also 19 stone.

This has been my main argument Sam. People don't quite realise how much the locks make the scrum work. Its not just the front row boys.

When you have a lightweight combo it takes away a huge amount of support for the front row. Having someone like Kitchener in there is a big jump up from Parling. But he is still as mobile round the park.

Then you have Launchbury...who should have been starting in the WC. Just those changes will help the front row a lot.

A front 5 of:
1 Marler
2 George
3 Cole
4 Kitchener
5 Launchbury

Would be far more rock solid yet still mobile and "athletic"

No 7&1/2 wrote:He's clearly not. None of these players we discuss in regards to England are even anywhere near under average.

Youngs is certainly "under average" in the set piece at International level, I doubt many neutrals would disagree.

I doubt you'd find many neutrals to be able to judge! If he was under average I'd expect to see us lose the vast majority of scrums and lineouts with him on the pitch. It just doesn't happen. He's better in the scrum than the lineout but even then there are very few cases where he's gone to pot.

There's going to pot(which has been the case on a few occasions, usually from the bench) and there's just throwing poorly. Watch back some of the games and see how much the locks have to work for the ball. I can't give Parling enough credit as he was often taking ball at the hip and way above his head, it's just not good enough.

I can recall at least twice in a single game when Youngs missed his hook also, this is basic hooking stuff. It's beyond "below average", it shouldn't be happening on the Int stage for England.

We're a set-piece proud nation and Youngs goes completely against that, I hope to never see him in an England jersey again.

Yeah, we really will have to disagree on this.

Yea, properly the best thing to do. My dislike of Youngs has been building for a number of years now, you're getting the brunt

Ha!

I think you're the first non Tigers fan I've seen who really defends Youngs tbh

I'd pick a out of form Care over a out of form Youngs any day.

TightHEAD wrote:I'd pick a out of form Care over a out of form Youngs any day.

At hooker? Lol

Brave call but it could work.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:I'd pick a out of form Care over a out of form Youngs any day.

At hooker? Lol

Brave call but it could work.

I bet he could nail the lineout throw...

I think with Youngs, you also have to consider that he almost only throws to the front - in fact in the world cup  - I saw a stat on the TV that he had not thrown once in 2 games to the back and only a couple of time to the middle

It totally weakens your attacking options if you are so easily read, and anything ovet the middle is a 50/50 lottery at best

The England WC missed Hartley more than any other play (IMO)

You only realise how important a good basics hooker is when you have a poor option, I don't know what's going in England these days with hookers.

Just for my piece of mind who are you thinking of who has been ideal for England at hooker?

Hartley is the front runner as he has the basics. I like George, he needs testing that his AP/Euro form can be replicated at Int level. After that we're looking at Haywood or Taylor I think.

LCD has potential but has truly awful darts, he needs a season or two at AP level imo.

Sorry meant in relation to the these days; insinuates we've had some good ones. I have a feeling Cowan-Dickie will be held in the same regard as Youngs forever tainted by the WC warm up. Fair to say Hartley had troubles with throwing in the 6Ns as well I'd say.

LCD has to get passed Yeandle aswell who looks a very solid hooker.

Tommy Taylor at Sale nailed on for them and very good at the core basics of a hooker. Not particularly big mind.

Then what happened to all the quins hookers? Buchanan? Gray? Ward?

For me Hartley and George should be vying for that starting and bench spot.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sorry meant in relation to the these days; insinuates we've had some good ones. I have a feeling Cowan-Dickie will be held in the same regard as Youngs forever tainted by the WC warm up. Fair to say Hartley had troubles with throwing in the 6Ns as well I'd say.

Everyone has their off days, but Hartley I pretty consistent where as Youngs is erratic and as previously said relies on the ball to the front far too much as anything beyond there is hit or miss.

I do not know if Youngs lack of scrimmaging ability is borne out of his size; Leicester do not seem to have much trouble, or the people around him. However if he is a square peg and the coach wants a round hole he has to go as the current players and Youngs are not compatible.

Seems to be Youngs week on here. I to would prefer Care to Youngs as long as both are either on or off form, if only one is off, the other plays. The trouble with Care and Ford together is obvious, two of the smallest players in international RU playing in the same channel, it will be targeted big time. Masses of flair, will keep the back row hanging around a bit longer than normal leaving room to punch holes or skip out to JJ in a bit of space. I just worry about the Robert's of this world aiming straight down the channel with support on their shoulder, can Care of Ford stop them dead or stop the offload like Farrell can.

Car-Farrell or Youngs-Ford has always seemed balanced to me.

LCD is starting ahead of Yeandle isn't he?

I'd say George and Hartley will likely be the 2 but I just don't get the anti Youngs thing. This generally goes around though, it'll be someone else's turn soon.

LCD - the only AP hooker (and I use the term hooker most incorrectly) that makes TY look like a hooker. Even though he isn't. A hooker that is. God help us.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:LCD - the only AP hooker (and I use the term hooker most incorrectly) that makes TY look like a hooker. Even though he isn't. A hooker that is. God help us.

If I hadn't tread the whole thread I would be very confused with this. Sounds more like Cynthia Payne's defence council's speech

GeordieFalcon wrote:LCD has to get passed Yeandle aswell who looks a very solid hooker.

Tommy Taylor at Sale nailed on for them and very good at the core basics of a hooker. Not particularly big mind.

Then what happened to all the quins hookers? Buchanan? Gray? Ward?

For me Hartley and George should be vying for that starting and bench spot.

Agree. Right now, on form, I'd start George.

George back to the bench with brits starting and no Fraser for Saracens.

Fraser suspended! thank gooness thought he was injured again.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sorry meant in relation to the these days; insinuates we've had some good ones. I have a feeling Cowan-Dickie will be held in the same regard as Youngs forever tainted by the WC warm up. Fair to say Hartley had troubles with throwing in the 6Ns as well I'd say.

I just worry about the Robert's of this world aiming straight down the channel with support on their shoulder, can Care of Ford stop them dead or stop the offload like Farrell can.

Or implement a defensive tactic of having some of the bigger forwards lineup in preparation of that.

Let Roberts run all day at Attwood or Kitchener or Garvey or Ewers or whoever plays.

I don't like hiding players at international level...but we need to play them for their real strengths...and if that means adjusdting the defensive pattern to fit in players like Ford and care...or Wade etc then it must be considered.

PS If Slade would bloomin move to 10 that wouldn't be an issue!

Agree 100%. England needs to start picking players to worry the opposition, not just negate them. Players like Ford, Joseph and Wade are the future for a potentially great England team. I don't think England can reach its potential with Farrell, Burrell and Nowell etc., albeit they are admittedly better at tackling.

Nowell is class though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:LCD is starting ahead of Yeandle isn't he?

I'd say George and Hartley will likely be the 2 but I just don't get the anti Youngs thing. This generally goes around though, it'll be someone else's turn soon.

Ah I think he's a bit unlucky. He's played in a weak, unbalanced pack. Imagine with a more powerful (yet still mobile ) lock combo, and more balanced flankers he would be a very good player.

AH yeah I rate Nowell highly...I think hes more than just a solid defensive winger.

To be fair to George Ford, he's not looked weak by any means. He's not exactly a Jonny Wilkinson smashing flankers backwards, but he holds on long enough and I can't remember sides targeting him with ball carriers specifically

It's more Ford's inability to play with moderate to back foot ball that's his real weakness, he is very young though and still learning his trade.

Nowell is a classy player, no issues with him in the team. Wade is extremely weak under the high ball and a poor tackler. There's having weaknesses then having real issues that could be targeted.

You need a certain type of complete game to step up for me. Look at the AB's are any of the backs weak in defence? Same with Aus. You could argue MS isn't the best defensively but he's leaps ahead of Wade.

Agree with you there Pooly, although Australia are very good at having their 10 hidden a bit defensively, Cooper and Foley were often out on the wing with Horne defending at 10

Wade is just poor in defence and the high ball for me Bam. It's not lack of trying but he's really bad when tested in the air.

No issues with Ford although paired with a weak scrum half ala Simpson, Care etc it could be a problem. You need somebody in the 9-12 channel who can put a play dead in his tracks, possibly less of a case at 9.

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Then what happened to all the quins hookers? Buchanan? Gray? Ward?

Ward is first choice at the moment...although we have been talking on the quins thread about campaigning to get him playing at 7! His turnover work is immense, easily the most technically skilled breakdown EQP player I've seen this season. Runs some great lines too. BUT his darts are a bit wobbly. Gray is the better lineout operator and strong round the park, but without the pace and turnovers. Buchanan was injured for a long time and is playing his way back in.

Yeah Ward used to be a 7 didn't he then he moved to 2. Move him back!

I thought Buchanan was going to be the one. Looked very physical and just needed to work on a few technical aspects of his position.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:You need a certain type of complete game to step up for me. Look at the AB's are any of the backs weak in defence? Same with Aus. You could argue MS isn't the best defensively but he's leaps ahead of Wade.

I don't think Savea's positioning is particularly good, nor do I think Milner-Skudder is any great shakes in the air or in the tackle. Ben Smith is decent in the air but he's hardly a thumping tackler. All scintillating attackers mind you, all lightening quick. Seems to me that the ABs pick the most talented attacking players and work on the rest. Rough diamonds seems to be allowed the chance to become big sparkly things.

The NH seems more about eliminating errors, being good under the high ball and having a good tackle completion rate. Nothing like a good spreadsheet with which to assess a winger.

I'm easy about all this from an England perspective, I really am. Please take the likes of May, Wade, Joseph, Ford, Simpson and Care out of the equation. They terrify me. I'd much rather face solid and predictable.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Wade is just poor in defence and the high ball for me Bam. It's not lack of trying but he's really bad when tested in the air.

No issues with Ford although paired with a weak scrum half ala Simpson, Care etc it could be a problem. You need somebody in the 9-12 channel who can put a play dead in his tracks, possibly less of a case at 9.

Agree with you on Wade, was talking about Ford more so. Really like Wade going forwards, but just can't see why we'd have him in at wing, Watson, Nowell and May aren't exactly poor in attack but offer a lot more defensively.

I think you're right in saying one big hitter in the inside backs is pretty much essential, its one of the reasons I'm not too keen on a Ford-Slade-Joseph midfield just yet.

I think I'd be more comfortable with Farrell-Slade-Joseph if we want to start Slade at 12, depending on Farrell's form. If we go with Ford I'd want to see a Burrell type 12

Being big doesn't make you a big hitter in defence.

I'd definitely argue that Slade is stronger in the tackle than Burrell for instance. He isn't the biggest but his positioning, technique and timing are excellent. On top of this he is also fearless.

I don't by any means think Burrell is poor defensively - the ease with which he moved to 13 without being caught out in positioning shows that. However he rarely uses his size to make 'big' hits. Rather he hits low and gets back up quickly to make sure he is back in the line for the next phase. This is a role that Slade is just as equipped to play IMO.

BamBam wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Wade is just poor in defence and the high ball for me Bam. It's not lack of trying but he's really bad when tested in the air.

No issues with Ford although paired with a weak scrum half ala Simpson, Care etc it could be a problem. You need somebody in the 9-12 channel who can put a play dead in his tracks, possibly less of a case at 9.

Agree with you on Wade, was talking about Ford more so. Really like Wade going forwards, but just can't see why we'd have him in at wing, Watson, Nowell and May aren't exactly poor in attack but offer a lot more defensively.

I think you're right in saying one big hitter in the inside backs is pretty much essential, its one of the reasons I'm not too keen on a Ford-Slade-Joseph midfield just yet.

I think I'd be more comfortable with Farrell-Slade-Joseph  if we want to start Slade at 12, depending on Farrell's form. If we go with Ford I'd want to see a Burrell type 12

My cards on the table:

England

9.Youngs 10.Ford 11.Watson 12.Tuilagi 13.Joseph 14.Wade 15.Brown

21.Care 22.Slade 23.Nowell

Saxons

9.Simpson 10.Farrell 11.May 12.Burrell 13.Daly 14.Yarde 15.Goode

21.Wigglesworth 22.Twelvetrees 23.Pennell

king_carlos wrote:Being big doesn't make you a big hitter in defence.

I'd definitely argue that Slade is stronger in the tackle than Burrell for instance. He isn't the biggest but his positioning, technique and timing are excellent. On top of this he is also fearless.

I don't by any means think Burrell is poor defensively - the ease with which he moved to 13 without being caught out in positioning shows that. However he rarely uses his size to make 'big' hits. Rather he hits low and gets back up quickly to make sure he is back in the line for the next phase. This is a role that Slade is just as equipped to play IMO.

Thats probably true, but also from an attacking point of view I think we need the option of a crash ball runner.

FES if Tuilagi can get fit and playing regularly, that could work. However with JDV for 6 months then Toomua from next season, I can't imagine Tigers playing him at 12

The big question is can Manu get fit and playing regularly above anything else!!

GeordieFalcon wrote:The big question is can Manu get fit and playing regularly above anything else!!

Yes all bets are off on Manu until that happens. As far as I know he's due to be back playing after Christmas (which one?) which will be too soon for the 6N so  the earliest he's likely to be back in the England fold will be next summer.

Given JJ's pec problems we could well be looking for yet another 13 for the 6N.

Apparently JJ could be back early December, gives him just enough time