Surprise English Selections

First topic message reminder :

Not another thread to discuss the merits of seasoned EPS players but more for fans of clubs to suggest players coming up through the ranks who might be bolters for a new coach in the future.

Ill start with Exeter Chiefs,

Alec Hepburn who signed for the Chiefs from Australian side Perth Glory, he's only played this season but his all action displays (especially from a prop) have made people really stand up and take notice, certainly has the speed and breakdown work of a flanker and has made countless line breaks already this season despite it being his first season in the Prem....... this is what Rob Baxter has to say about him when he signed:

“Alec was in a bit of a strange rugby situation. He played in the England Under-20s World Cup-winning side with some of our lads, was involved with Wasps and on loan at London Welsh. He was there with Mitch Lees and part of the squad that went on to win promotion. “He went to Australia for personal family reasons, but when we knew he was coming back to the UK we had a good look at him in those Championship games and had a chat with our lads who played with him for England Under-20s and it all came back very positively that he’s a young player we feel has got a bright future ahead of him.

Don Armand - despite not being a young'un hes got super rugby experience and holds English nationality through his Zimbabwean routes. Has played Lock and Flanker in the past for the chiefs but is now packing down at number 8 and has scored 3 tries this season. Heis currently keeping out last seasons player of the season Thomas Waldrom. Would offer a completely different impact than Morgan or Vunipola as his main assets are breakdown work and speed around the pitch as well as being a jumper in the lineout.

Stats from the world cup (if you believe them) showed that in the world cup final New Zealand's average forward weight was 17 stone 7 lbs.  Australia's was 17 stone 11 lbs.  For the England v Australia pool game the average England forward weight was 17 stone 6 lbs.  So we are very similar if slightly smaller than New Zealand.  I don't think we can out skill New Zealand, so I think to some degree we need to out power them, which would suggest a bit more size with Attwood/Slater/Kitchener in the second row rather than Lawes/Kruis/Itoje.

I appreciate size isn't everything, but our front 5 definitely looked underpowered in the world cup.

No insult intended, but I don't think Josh Beaumont should be near an England place, he is a very poor man's Kieran Read and I don't think could make the hard yards in the same way you don't expect Tom Croft to.  Running out wide in space against backs ok, but running round the fringes, he would get absolutely hammered.  And I am a Sale fan.

I agree with you about Beaumont. Not ready yet.

Also...I appreciate size is not everything, far from it...its about power, pace, lines, technique etc.

Beaumont is a long way off our other options and we have Hughes coming through who's one of the strongest guys in the AP.

And when they're fit and on form (uninjured! ) Billy and Ben a very good No.8's

Even Wales made our pack look like a bunch of U19s. Jones will hopefully find more grunt but on reflection with his time with Aus and Japan he didn't have really powerful packs. On the plus side I think he is a coach that can get the best out of what he has to work with.

I think Nick Auterac is someone who is going to be a star and needs to be looked at seriously.

englandglory4ever wrote:Even Wales made our pack look like a bunch of U19s. Jones will hopefully find more grunt but on reflection with his time with Aus and Japan he didn't have really powerful packs. On the plus side I think he is a coach that can get the best out of what he has to work with.

No they did not, Wales were the one pack that England dominated and yet still managed to find a way to lose. Wales have major issues to address but won't as will be happy because they beat a very poor England team in a game that 9 times out of 10 they would not.

The england pack weight wasn't that far off most of the teams we played. However, the big difference came in that our front 5 was significantly lighter than the oppositions, which we compensated for by having a much heavier back 3. basically the opposite way it should be imo, we need a big front 5 dominate the set piece and a more mobile back row to get around the park and secure rucks

belovedfrosties wrote:The england pack weight wasn't that far off most of the teams we played.  However, the big difference came in that our front 5 was significantly lighter than the oppositions, which we compensated for by having a much heavier back 3.  basically the opposite way it should be imo, we need a big front 5 dominate the set piece and a more mobile back row to get around the park and secure rucks

That's a good point.  But, to me, the weird thing is that basically this same pack held up and performed pretty well prior to the RWC.  Do you think this was part of the extra edge which Hartley added? Or perhaps something happened during pre-RWC training? Both?

Dr Grey

I honestly think there were two issues.

1) As you and I have mentioned earlier, too many returning from injury who were simply not fit / match fit / probably still carrying the injury.

2) How hard were they pushed in all this fitness training in the US etc. Were they worked so hard that they were physically wrecked when they got to the WC?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Dr Grey

I honestly think there were two issues.

1) As you and I have mentioned earlier, too many returning from injury who were simply not fit  / match fit / probably still carrying the injury.

2) How hard were they pushed in all this fitness training in the US etc. Were they worked so hard that they were physically wrecked when they got to the WC?

Yeah, gotta agree.  As we said before, too many players not really ready an recovered.  I have a comment about that in a sec.  And also something not right in the training.

Regarding the training, Tom Wood said he was in the best shape of his life.  Maybe the training took off too much fat, and inevitably muscle too, which is needed for eneregy stores and body mass?  Put them in super aerobic shape but weakened the players just a hair?  Likely would only impact the forwards and the marginal weakening would likely only be apparent at game time.  I am sure the objective measures in training were fine.  Speculation only, but only conclusion that makes sense to me.

There were recently some well attended meetings in New York with orthopaedists and medical teams who routinely treat athletes at all levels from schools to professional.  One of the main discussion ponts was around when athletes are 'cleared' to resume normal activity but have lost the physical edge during recovery.  There is a clear gap, shocking really, with many docs who treat athletes and clear athletes based only on objective medical data and do not really assess the readiness of the individual.  Few recommendations about the physical and it is simply turned over to the physios.  Very few people who connect the dots.  I do see this commonly, and the docs I work with comment on this frequently because this is not how we operate.  But I was not really aware how common this is.  Even with good medical folks working with top level athletes.  For us, this is bad medicine.  

It seems this is something which both docs and physios want to maintain.  And coaches at all levels only want the objective medical clearance because it allows them to rush back players.

Very interesting info Doc.

Certainly would explain why the forwards did look a degree underpowered.

As to the injured...well I think near on half the team was either recovering from serious injury or minor knocks etc.

In that situation he should have selected others...we have enough depth. Id rather have a fully fit 4th choice than an injured or unfit 1/2/3 choice.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Very interesting info Doc.

Certainly would explain why the forwards did look a degree underpowered.

As to the injured...well I think near on half the team was either recovering from serious injury or minor knocks etc.

In that situation he should have selected others...we have enough depth. Id rather have a fully fit 4th choice than an injured or unfit 1/2/3 choice.

Yeah, that's the point, I would select less experienced players who were playing well rather than our first players whoi might not be able to perform.  Just like our discussion abou deviating from the plan, I get the feeling that once cleared they were back in 'The Plan'.  Not whether they had recovered back to their original level.  Combine that with over-training players to the point of non-performance, no wonder we were a mediocre team, especially compared to our performance in the Six Nations.  The England team in the Six Nations would have easily defeated that injured riddled Wales outfit.    

I guess it is the definition of 'recovered'.  Many people define it as the injury or debilitation is corrected and the body is functioning normally.  Others define it as back at previous level, but that takes more work by the doc and interest and work far beyond performing mere carpentry, so to speak.  Obviously, I think back at previous level is the best definition because even in normal life if you break your femur, it might take you six months to be back to normal.  So that would be six months until fully recovered and I have to remain involved.  I actually find it unprofessional and lazy to simply put the parts back together and claim victory. And it is very common.

Hepburn has certainly started well back in the English game, and I like Auturac too although I'm not sure about his form so far this season. Harrison seems to be doing ok at Sale (and I wonder if Taylor is worth considering at hooker?). I thought England's LHs were slightly disappointing at the WC so there could be a change here.

How is Devoto going? He could bring balance to the backline as he's a big lad. Obviously it is way too early, but James does look to have a bit of ex-factor about him, and like Slade can play 10, 12, 13 (unlike Slade he doesn't want to be a FH). Clifford looks like a 6 to me and I think that position is wide open now. It would be great to see Earl get some game time.