Eddie's England squad for summer

First topic message reminder :

Hello you lovely lot.

I've very much enjoyed your posts over this six nations. Great stuff.

I don't post much as I'm a bit of a novice (well a lot of really) but I'm always intrigued by your far more experienced wisdom. So:

The summer will bring a chance for Eddie to put more of his stamp on the team; who do you think stays the same and who changes? And who, if any, so you think might be bolters? (I know it's an oxymoron asking about bolters this early, but I'm going to do it anyway)

englandglory4ever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not seen very much at all to be honest. Don't think we need him, don't want him but Jones seems keen on him as long as the clubs say it's ok due to him moving to the prem next season. Hope they just say no.

Oh dear another downer on a good player. A player that no one has seen play but is being cast in to the bin already. The guy's got no chance if this reflects the media's one-eyed views. It smacks of ugly elitism.

Is he as good or better than the current crop?
Is he going to develop? Will he be a world class center at the age of 33 at the next RWC?

He qualifies for England through his mum. If he makes a compelling case to be picked then so be it, but there are lots of 'buts'

I don't read much about pro12 games but if he was something special you'd expect his name to appear in headlines, or at least have Leinster supporters up in arms and upset about him leaving. I might have missed all of that but I haven't seen anything along those lines. (Just looking here on the 'irish gossip' thread and there is one guy saying he might leave Leinster for France or England, to which there were no responses)

In contrast we have Manu who is back playing after a year or so out with injury and is looking chubby and unfit, and whose influence on games is still very uneven. And yet he's already scored a bunch of tries in a handful of games and is playing the kind of game that we had always hoped he would. You can see that Manu is only going to get better as his conditioning improves. You also have the young guns coming through who might be great players in 4 years time.

It is also worth mentioning that we have selected Kiwi RL players with weak links to England a few times before. There is always a chance that there will be an exception but the best we have done so far was Hape, of whom the best you can say is that he wasn't awful.

I think other countries must be laughing at us every time someone suggests picking Te'o. Why on earth would we ever pick him over Slade or Manu?! I don't want him any where near the Aus squad like with Burgess it sends the wrong message to the players.

Surely players should be judged on their own merits rather than... it didn't work for player x it won't work for player y. That's the worst way to judge a player.

If the player is good enough and qualifies then in reality he should be picked. It shouldn't be about whether or not he was pictured in an England jersey aged 7 next to Martin Johnson or whether at that age he worshipped Richie McCaw/Brian O'Driscoll/Schalk Burger etc etc etc. What people do as kids/juniors is not fully reflective on their lives now. That said, if they are doing it only for the money, prestige of  test honours when they can't get it in their "home" nation then sure, their loyalty should be questioned.
He qualifies straight off because his mum is English right... well that should really be all that is required. Its as good as you'll never find outside of the normal born and bred types and probably (probably) has more loyalty to the nation then someone who moved to the UK aged 14 with no ancestral ties.

He's a little on the old side and will be what 33 come 2019 so that's up to Eddie if he goes. Maybe short term gains can improve ranking and help England in the long term too even if he is only a 1-2 year player. That's why Eddie earns the big money.

little_badger wrote:I think other countries must be laughing at us every time someone suggests picking Te'o. Why on earth would we ever pick him over Slade or Manu?! I don't want him any where near the Aus squad like with Burgess it sends the wrong message to the players.

To be fair centre is not a position of strength.

Farrell - a 10 shoehorned into the 12 shirt. A mediocre 6 nations.

Joseph - who had one good game vs Italy and was mediocre for the rest of the 6 nations.

Slade and Manu -.... one who hasn't started a game for England at centre in a long time and the other who has only played twice in warm up games, a 10 by trade too.

The only reason why a player like Teo is being discussed is because of the lack of strength in depth.

fa0019 wrote:Surely players should be judged on their own merits rather than... it didn't work for player x it won't work for player y. That's the worst way to judge a player.

If the player is good enough and qualifies then in reality he should be picked. It shouldn't be about whether or not he was pictured in an England jersey aged 7 next to Martin Johnson or whether at that age he worshipped Richie McCaw/Brian O'Driscoll/Schalk Burger etc etc etc. What people do as kids/juniors is not fully reflective on their lives now. That said, if they are doing it only for the money, prestige of  test honours when they can't get it in their "home" nation then sure, their loyalty should be questioned.
He qualifies straight off because his mum is English right... well that should really be all that is required. Its as good as you'll never find outside of the normal born and bred types and probably (probably) has more loyalty to the nation then someone who moved to the UK aged 14 with no ancestral ties.

He's a little on the old side and will be what 33 come 2019 so that's up to Eddie if he goes. Maybe short term gains can improve ranking and help England in the long term too even if he is only a 1-2 year player. That's why Eddie earns the big money.

As I said 'There is always a chance that there will be an exception'. But in the past we have been very guilty of thinking 'they are a Kiwi and an RL player therefore they are going to be fantastic' when they haven't. We have prejudged such players in too positive a light.

He's never played in England that's my big issue. He's actually worse than Hughes! If he qualifies he qualifies but until he proves himself in England I'd really not want him. There's plenty of options coming through at centre now beshocked. Need to give some of them a chance before we turn to a 29 year old merc.

beshocked wrote:

little_badger wrote:I think other countries must be laughing at us every time someone suggests picking Te'o. Why on earth would we ever pick him over Slade or Manu?! I don't want him any where near the Aus squad like with Burgess it sends the wrong message to the players.

To be fair centre is not a position of strength.

Farrell - a 10 shoehorned into the 12 shirt. A mediocre 6 nations.

Joseph - who had one good game vs Italy and was mediocre for the rest of the 6 nations.

Slade and Manu -.... one who hasn't started a game for England at centre in a long time and the other who has only played twice in warm up games, a 10 by trade too.

The only reason why a player like Teo is being discussed is because of the lack of strength in depth.

...or because we are desperate to stick the boot in the minute someone has a dip in form.

It'll be Watson next "hes not even a proper winger"


By a lack of strength in depth you could mean a lack of limited options meaning theres always "someone who should be given a go" (What happened to Daly and Tompkins?) .
Henry who?

Every England coach has gone through a ridiculous number of centers since 2003. Maybe its not a lack of strength in depth, more a lack of strength in first choice...but personally Im pretty excited by the prospect of Tuillagi and Jospeh running at the opposition.

Having seen Te'o feature this season against Wasps and Bath he looked decent but nothing earth shatteringly special.

Add in we are talking about a guy who will be 33 come the next world cup and has yet to appear in the AP and I say why bother. There are so many young centres doing well that do we really need to bring in a relatively unproven novice?

Jones likes league players with NRL experience . He had them in his Wallaby team and also in his Japanese side. I'm sure he would have loved Sam Burgess to still be available, although I haven't a clue where he would have played him. He's bound to get asked about Burgess sooner or later, so it'll be interesting to hear how he plays that one.

Also, Jones has often chosen dependable skills and experience over youthful promise in his coaching career.

Gooseberry

Depth isn't a problem, it's strength. England have struggled to find players who stand out.

You can throw names out there but they need to prove themselves. England have some good prospects but need someone to rise to the occasion.

Manu needs to prove himself again as a starter for England, Slade needs to prove himself to. I know these are the two "centres" most are excited for but plenty of work for both to do.

no 7 & 1/2 options but no shoo ins.

Yes plenty of options to try before going to a guy whos never played in England. That doesn't bother Jones which is why I'd like the clubs to put a stop to it, others get the chance and prove they're good enough. I think they will be.

LondonTiger wrote:Having seen Te'o feature this season against Wasps and Bath he looked decent but nothing earth shatteringly special.

Add in we are talking about a guy who will be 33 come the next world cup and has yet to appear in the AP and I say why bother. There are so many young centres doing well that do we really need to bring in a relatively unproven novice?

I think the thinking that you should only worry about the next world cup is not quite right. It's good to work players in but not necessarily at the expense of victory. Getting seeding is very important in the end. England lost out of the 1st tier and therefore got AUS and WAL rather than Ireland and Italy (France were the team who beat them to 4th place in 2013). Had Lancaster not tried to blood certain players perhaps (just perhaps) he would have got that 4th place. He ignored Nick Easter for 3 years for instance, could have made the diff.

Easter wasn't as good as Morgan and Vunipola towards the end. He shouldn't have discounted him at the start of his reign in hindsight. The seeding thing is a bit of an odd one. England were unlucky to pull that group but being top seeds doesn't mean you would miss that sort of group in the future it relies on a very good team like Wales not temporarily dropping.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Easter wasn't as good as Morgan and Vunipola towards the end. He shouldn't have discounted him at the start of his reign in hindsight. The seeding thing is a bit of an odd one. England were unlucky to pull that group but being top seeds doesn't mean you would miss that sort of group in the future it relies on a very good team like Wales not temporarily dropping.

Well being tied with a team like Wales is now inevitable.... but avoiding a team like Australia/New Zealand/South Africa was a key reason Lancaster is now out of a job.

fa0019 wrote:..Getting seeding is very important in the end. England lost out of the 1st tier and therefore got AUS and WAL rather than Ireland and Italy (France were the team who beat them to 4th place in 2013)...

The problem wasn't that England didn't get a top tier seeding, it's that Wales losses meant they ended up in a pool with two top 8 teams. Australia got out of the pool but they were no happier to be in it.

Rugby Fan wrote:

fa0019 wrote:..Getting seeding is very important in the end. England lost out of the 1st tier and therefore got AUS and WAL rather than Ireland and Italy (France were the team who beat them to 4th place in 2013)...

The problem wasn't that England didn't get a top tier seeding, it's that Wales losses meant they ended up in a pool with two top 8 teams. Australia got out of the pool but they were no happier to be in it.

But they were the best side out of the 3 in terms of seeding and eventual results so they were better equipped to deal with it than the other 2 (in theory and in practice).

But being top seed didn't stop them getting a group where it could ahve been any of the 3 going out.

Rugby Fan wrote:

fa0019 wrote:..Getting seeding is very important in the end. England lost out of the 1st tier and therefore got AUS and WAL rather than Ireland and Italy (France were the team who beat them to 4th place in 2013)...

The problem wasn't that England didn't get a top tier seeding, it's that Wales losses meant they ended up in a pool with two top 8 teams. Australia got out of the pool but they were no happier to be in it.

If England had have stolen 4th in that Autumn series, they could have still got Wales or Scotland as 3rd tier sides and 1 of France, Ireland, Samoa or Argentina as second tier sides. So at worst could have ended up with Wales and Argentina, but that would still be two 50/50 games, rather than one 50/50 and one 40/60. Small margins, but that's what we went out on.

With Te'o, if Jones thinks he's the best now then he should go with him. He's eligible and he's committed his medium-term future to the English leagues. I'd like to see Tuilagi, Joseph and Daly go with Slade covering 10 and centre, so there's room for one more centre. Burrell, Hill, Devoto, Eastmond, Te'o, none of them are World Class.

With a Saxons tour as well, taking Hill and Devoto to South Africa to play 2/3 A test matches may be better for their development than holding Manu's tacklebags and playing in a scratch team against a few Aussie third-stringers.

Surely Sam Hill is a better option than Teo if we want a stronger style of player?

At least he's young and English with the potential to improve further.

I think the Teo thing is a little overblown right. Reminds me of the time Clive Woodward praised Trevor Brennan leading up to the 05 lions selection. All of a sudden he was a cast-iron cert to tour and test.

Not sure if Jones provided the information or was simply answering a question. It's a big difference.

There may well be spaces for more players in the right positions but nobody who has said lets give him a go have actually provided a reason as to why Te'o deserves a spot.

The only reason why its come up is because EJ did mention it but I have not seen any evidence to support that idea.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Let me guess he's a big guy you'd love to see?

My point is that we're finally getting that good crop of players through in midfield: Tuilagi back, Slade, Daly, Joseph, as GF mentioned Hill. Then you have the likes of Mallinder, Stephenson.

By the way I'm not part of the media.

Apart from Joseph and maybe Manu none of those listed are anymore than 'maybes'. Manu is still proving himself and has no guarantee of getting a starting spot. Just as it should be. I've never seen T'eo and wouldn't recognise him if he bumped in to me but for people to blithely dismiss a player being touted by the coach is just well, strange, to say the least. I can only think these are the ugly public school old boy network traits at work.

BTW. I didn't say you were the media did I? Don't keep making stuff up.

You quoted me saying T'eo had no chance if I reflected the medias 1 eyed views:I'm not part of the media so nowt to do with me. I was schooled in a comp near Boro.

I would prefer we went with promising over 29 year old merc who hasn't yet played even a second in the prem let alone impressed. We have Hughes coming soon and he'll cause enough jokes after playing here 3 years.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You quoted me saying T'eo had no chance if I reflected the medias 1 eyed views:I'm not part of the media so nowt to do with me. I was schooled in a comp near Boro.

I would prefer we went with promising over 29 year old merc who hasn't yet played even a second in the prem let alone impressed. We have Hughes coming soon and he'll cause enough jokes after playing here 3 years.

Boro!!! I'd forgot why I didn't like you....bloody smoggies

Bit rich from a monkey hanger

How dare you!!

Takes all sorts Pooly I try not to hold the Newcastle thing against you!

TBH having midfield crop of

EPS V Aus
12) Manu, T'eo
13) Daly, JJ

Saxons V SA
12) Hill, Devoto
13) Thompkins, James

U20 RWC @ Manchester
12) Mallinder
13) Williams

TBH i would be happy with that and with the likes of Umaga looking promising in the U19/U18 we have excellent depth.

Discounted Slade?

At 10 for me.

But he is there.

LondonTiger wrote:Bit rich from a monkey hanger

Monkey Hangers come from about 20 miles south of Newcastle LT, I know that for a fact as my father was one

And still the best mascot around; Hartlepool's H'Angus the Monkey.

Welly wrote:TBH having midfield crop of

EPS V Aus
12) Manu, T'eo
13) Daly, JJ

Saxons V SA
12) Hill, Devoto
13) Thompkins, James

U20 RWC @ Manchester
12) Mallinder
13) Williams

TBH i would be happy with that and with the likes of Umaga looking promising in the U19/U18 we have excellent depth.

You think that's impressive? Most of those prospects are unproven. Also even Joseph didn't have the best 6 nations and has been in patchy form for Bath, Daly is doing fine but needs to start at international level to show what he can do.

Manu has to prove himself again at international level, especially in the new position of 12. Personally I thought he went missing against Saints on the weekend.

As for Teo, I don't even see why he's an option, he's got to prove himself, he's not the Jamie Vardy of the rugby world, he's not been tearing things up.

Hill and Devoto - I can't say they've exactly stood out this season.

James - I'll be honest I don't know who he is.

Tompkins - struggling for gametime, not exactly standing out. I wouldn't pick him for the Saxons based on current form.

Mallinder - probably the best prospect but he's still young, to be honest I'd probably pick him over the others bar Manu and maybe Slade.

Williams - don't know him.

Mentioning Umaga is similar to mentioning Nick Isieckwe - could be a great prospect but a long way off (I know Isieckwe is a 2nd row).


I wouldn't say the strength in depth in centres looks that impressive.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And still the best mascot around; Hartlepool's H'Angus the Monkey.

Of course my father came from West Hartlepool and at the time Hartlepool and WH.... were still individual towns so West Hartlepudlians could deny any responsibility. Or so he always told me.

Funny how it happened all over the West Country but everyone knows about Hartlepools' claim to fame

We have no strength in depth anywhere bar lock then.

It's a great story though Well Past It!

No 7&1/2 wrote:And still the best mascot around; Hartlepool's H'Angus the Monkey.

Who obviously became Town Mayor, with the pledge of free bananas to school kids!

I wonder who the guys are that EJ mentioned 'as playing themselves out of the tour'.
Gut feeling is possibly the Bath contingent -
Ford, Joseph, Watson
Maybe Brown - solid but unspectacular
LCD hasn't been amazing for Chiefs
Cole hasn't had a great season, neither has Marler.

Is there anyone else that could be in the firing line?

No 7&1/2 wrote:We have no strength in depth anywhere bar lock then.

That's the case no 7 & 1/2 the RWC showed that too.

Our "strength in depth" was a myth.

Injuries and absentees exposed frailties.

Still to an extent we are too reliant on the likes of B.Vunipola and Hartley.

Lock you are right, didn't need to rely on "world class" Launchbury who wasn't fully fit.

I agree. We have no real depth at all in the backs. Just lots of names to bandy about. We can probably just scrape two test standard players at 9, 10 and 15. Thats about it.

Never said Launchbury was world class beshocked, don't fall into the trap of making stuff up again. If the strength in depth was a myth why exactly was Lancaster and England underachieving again?

I'm not too worried about Billy V, Morgan isn't going to let anyone down at 8 and EJ has said he sees Clifford there long term. In general I think we have as good a squad as we have for a long time.

It's the nous and ability to play heads up rugby that's made the difference. Under SL we were so obviously playing to a pre-defined playbook and when we came up against teams that countered it we failed miserably....which just happened to be one game every 6N!

propdavid_london wrote:I wonder who the guys are that EJ mentioned 'as playing themselves out of the tour'.
Gut feeling is possibly the Bath contingent -
Ford, Joseph, Watson
Maybe Brown - solid but unspectacular
LCD hasn't been amazing for Chiefs
Cole hasn't had a great season, neither has Marler.

Is there anyone else that could be in the firing line?

Agree on Ford, Brown and Cole, they were the first that sprang to mind. Maybe Haskell?

James - I'll be honest I don't know who he is.

Williams - don't know him.

Wow...you're rugby knowledge outside the confines of Allianz Park is really quite outstandingly poor.

I'm starting to see why think all Sarries players are so good, it's because you don't watch anybody else!

englandglory4ever wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Let me guess he's a big guy you'd love to see?

My point is that we're finally getting that good crop of players through in midfield: Tuilagi back, Slade, Daly, Joseph, as GF mentioned Hill. Then you have the likes of Mallinder, Stephenson.

By the way I'm not part of the media.

Apart from Joseph and maybe Manu none of those listed are anymore than 'maybes'. Manu is still proving himself and has no guarantee of getting a starting spot. Just as it should be. I've never seen T'eo and wouldn't recognise him if he bumped in to me but for people to blithely dismiss a player being touted by the coach is just well, strange, to say the least. I can only think these are the ugly public school old boy network traits at work.

BTW. I didn't say you were the media did I? Don't keep making stuff up.

I don't want to dismiss Te'o either but forgive me for feeling jaded when yet another past it Kiwi RL player is presented as the saviour of English RU without any actual evidence

no 7 & 1/2 Lancaster didn't do a good enough job building depth, especially at hooker, he relied on pint sized T.Youngs in the RWC and had two players molly coddle him at lineout time.

Lancaster had no contingency plan when Hartley was missing. No contingency for other players either.

Making stuff up? You mean like you saying Ireland have never been a RWC host... a newbie...

Still defending Lancaster's RWC failure as usual.

Sgt Pooly instead of jumping down my throat you could educate me, who are they?

I criticised Tompkins, saying he's not ready, that's not exactly me saying all Sarries players are so good....

I think the best prospect at the moment is a non Saracens player - Mallinder - shock horror!

mid gen Morgan really? I thought he had a poor RWC.

Sgt Pooly instead of jumping down my throat you could educate me, who are they?

Or you could just watch some more rugby? I really don't have enough time to educate you I'm afraid, there's not enough time in the day.

We've been through the depth thing before, you were saying you'd like good options down to 3rd choice as demonstrated by the fact it went pear sharped at 8 in the WC. I still doubt that this is really achievable given the time constraints with available games along with maintaining a decent win %.

In regards to Ireland as was referring to them being the main hosts, given I'd already acknowledged that they had had some games there in the same thread you can decide if that's what I did mean. But again if you want to say they were hosts fair enough, England are the 2nd hosts to go out at the groups.

Didn't mention the WC.

Sgt Pooly stick to the rugby.

Do you not know who the players are yourself? If you don't then stop preaching....

No 7 & 1/2 Jones has at least said the right things in regards to depth, didn't hear those things from Lancaster.

Time constraints... 4 years...

You accuse me of twisting things but I am not the only one. Ireland aren't a new country, they've hosted RWC games, no not a RWC exclusively but Ireland have been involved in the hosting of 2 RWCs. Doesn't matter if England were first or 2nd, it will stay long in the memory that England went out in the pool stages in the 2015 RWC as hosts. Of course according to you Lancaster didn't underachieve with that feat....


Anyway I've talked about that far too much. Jones needs to focus on strength in depth, not get infatuated by RL players. Teo's name being bandied around isn't good, even you agree.

Rugby Fan wrote:

fa0019 wrote:..Getting seeding is very important in the end. England lost out of the 1st tier and therefore got AUS and WAL rather than Ireland and Italy (France were the team who beat them to 4th place in 2013)...

The problem wasn't that England didn't get a top tier seeding, it's that Wales losses meant they ended up in a pool with two top 8 teams. Australia got out of the pool but they were no happier to be in it.

Funnily enough it worked out the other way for themn at the previous world cup where they got Argentina as a "pot 1" team.

What it really boils down to though is that Lancaster never quite could get the handle on physcology (despite all his flappery around that kind of thing) and use of replacements for closing out crunch games ...something that was evident with Ronshaw as captiain from the first lot of AIs.