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)

The last bit? Burrell.

Farrell is a better 10 but he did a job at 12, better than I expected though I'd have prefered other options. I think Slade is just class, he needs to be given that chance, easily a better centre than Farrell eitehr 12 or 13. May well end up at 10 for England but depends on others who hold their hands up in the next couple of years ie the Dalys, Jospehs, Mallinder, Tuilagis of the world.

A few people calling for a former 10 at full back too. I don't think you necessarily need to put people into a box and say stay there, if they have the skills players can play across a few positions.

Burrell is a centre though not a 10. Think he's looked a lot better for England at 13 than 12.

Doing a job isn't the same as playing well. I want Slade to prove he's class at either 12,13 or 10 for England.

No people don't need to stay in a box but they need to perform.

I personally don't think we've got any player I would be comfortable seeing in multiple positions.

You might think Slade but he's unproven in all three at the moment.

I am confused Beshocked.

After the 6Ns you were telling us just how good Jones was, now he seems in your opinion to be dreadful - yet we have not played a game since.

Yes players need to perform, but I don't think they need to play in the same position they play for their club, or indeed in the same way. Slade played 10 in his youth, has come through as midfielder for Exeter; surely like Burrell as a midfielder he can play either 12 or 13 then? Personally I'd be looking to play Slade at 12 for England as soon as possible. He could play 13 but we have Daly and Joseph seemingly well set there and we have Ford and farrell well set at 10. Are we that bothered that Goode is a 10 playing full back? I'm not.

Londontiger Jones and his management team - it's not just a one man show, all of them did a good job to get the GS.

Doesn't mean that he's infallible though.

Even competent people can make mistakes, no one is perfect.

I am not the only person pointing out questionable decisions.

Maybe these questionable decisions will pan out perfectly. Maybe they won't.

Perhaps it's unfair to write off a 29 year old Aussie as one of the best centres available to England. Perhaps it's unfair to write off Yarde even though I don't think he's played well in two seasons of club rugby.

no 7 & 1/2 I think you'll find that Goode's pace (perceived lack of it) is quite a big reason why people don't want him there, he was a 10 converted to 15.

I disagree with some of the management's selection decisions - however unlike you I can see the logic in what they have done, and I can accept they know more than me.

beshocked wrote:

Perhaps it's unfair to write off a 29 year old Aussie as one of the best centres available to England. Perhaps it's unfair to write off Yarde even though I don't think he's played well in two seasons of club rugby.

.

Its a f#%3ing disgrace that's hes even been named in the squad!!!

So Slade is a 10 who now plays midfield as well.

beshocked wrote:Burrell is a centre though not a 10. Think he's looked a lot better for England at 13 than 12.

.

I agree, Burrell seemed to look lost at 12, but seemed to flourish at 13 for England.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:Burrell is a centre though not a 10. Think he's looked a lot better for England at 13 than 12.

.

I agree, Burrell seemed to look lost at 12, but seemed to flourish at 13 for England.

Same of course could be said for 36.

Nah he's just looked gash everywhere he's played 7.5

Average I'd say GF.

36 at 12 Burrell at 13 did work more or less as a combo.

since then 36 has disappeared and Burrell at 12 was a weak link in an otherwise exciting back line.

Thankfully Twelvetrees doesn't look likely to return.

Londontiger I am sure the coaches know some things that none of us do but then again they don't get everything right.

I can hear the coaches' reasoning but doesn't mean I agree.

lostinwales I think Burrell at 13 working was more down to strong performances from Care,Farrell and Brown in the backline, rather than Twelvetrees orchestrating proceedings. One of the weak links was Twelvetrees IMO.

Now we are looking for another centre combo out of Slade,Joseph,T'eo and Farrell.....

I do think that H.Mallinder might be able to help reignite Burrell's international career if they can forge a successful 12-13 combo for Saints next season.

Well 36 at 12 looked a good deal more at home than Burrell did. It's all academic though. In the short term Te'o might be a stop gap or Slade will do what a lot of us hope he will. And then we can get on with the inevitable hyping of Mallinder as the new improved 36.

Why is Ashton such a Frak big Kumquat?

beshocked wrote:FES you say Manu is a big blow for England but he's barely featured for England in the last 3 years.

Fully fit Manu in good form is a real asset but that's a rare thing these days.

Burrell and Joseph have done fine as 13s. England have to see Manu as a luxury that might come back but can't rely on him as he's not reliable!

It's a sad state of affairs in the centres. 29 year old Aussie and forcing a 10 into the centres seems to be England's fate.

Still unsure which 10 will be forced into the centre. Maybe both?

Would allow E.Jones to play 3 10s in the backline. Lancaster loved his FBs perhaps 10 is Eddie Jones favourite position.

Agreed on his injury record, but he's still in my view a key player for Jones. In a dream scenario of everyone being fully fit, on form and available, Manu would be my 12 for England.

I suspect it'll be Te'o and Joseph in the summer.

I seem to recall that the Toulon side that won the European Champions cup a couple of years back had 3 RWC semi-finalist fly halves playing 9, 10 and 12 and they didn't look too bad.

No-one ever complained about Mike Catt playing every position from 10-15 for England (though plenty of people complained about Mike Catt, at least prior to the 2003 RWC semifinal, where he played 12 with one of Toulon's 10s and against another one).

Richard Hill and Lawrence Dallaglio each played 6, 7 and 8 for England. And so on.

Some players can play multiple positions. Some players can't. But single position specialisation looks to me like a generational thing.

Players who grew up in the amateur era regularly played multiple positions - Jason Leonard talks about playing loosehead and tighthead within the same game depending on who got to the scrum first.

After 2003, we had the first generation of NH academy players coming through, most of them had been groomed for a single position, and the media for some reason got hung up on the idea that players should only play in one place. (Though that didn't stop them gushing about Tom Youngs, who never quite mastered the basics of his "second" position).

Nowadays, academies have adopted the SH late specialisation approach, and we are seeing players coming out who have grown up playing multiple positions. Some of them will settle in one position (Kyle Sinckler, who was a fullback before he became a tighthead, probably Harry Thacker now he's gone to hooker), but some of them can play multiple positions.

Farrell can play 10, 12 and 13 to a high standard. I would argue that the best argument for not playing him in the centres is the players he keeps out rather than any deficiency over and above the (fairly few) gaps he has as a 10.

Slade can also play 10, 12 and 13 - and probably would have played 12 in the 6N at some point if he hadn't been injured.

Mallinder has played 10, 12 and 15 IIRC. Marchant at Quins can play 10 and 13. Theo Brophy-Clews plays 10 & 12. No-one seems bothered at the idea of Watson as a long-term fullback.

In the forwards, Clifford used to play 12, which helps with the link play at 7 even if his size suggests that 6 or 8 might be best for him long term. Beaumont used to play 10, and I could see him playing lock long term (memories of John Eales, anyone?). James Chisholm has looked pretty handy across the back row, as has Underhill. Itoje, as beshocked will remind us, can play 6 (though Eddie doesn't see that as his best position).

We are training the current generation of players to be comfortable in multiple roles. This is something to celebrate - after all, the ABs have done it since the dawn of time and it's not done them much harm - and it gives us more options to perm a team to the required tactics and put the best players on the pitch rather than have to leave out good players because someone else is marginally better in their "preferred" position.

"Mallinder has played 10, 12 and 15 IIRC. Marchant at Quins can play 10 and 13. Theo Brophy-Clews plays 10 & 12. No-one seems bothered at the idea of Watson as a long-term fullback."

He has also appeared at 14, he has some serious pace once he gets moving.

Brophy Clews also started a Challenge Cup (Agen away) game at full back this year.

With Manu confirmed injured I expect that for the first Oz test we will see a side as similar to the 6 Nations as possible. Probably something such as:

Mako, Hartley, Cole, Itoje, Kruis, Robshaw, Haskell, Billy
Care, Ford, Nowell, Farrell, Joseph, Watson, Brown

Reps: George, Mullan, Hill, Launchbury/Lawes, Clifford/Harrison, Youngs, Slade, Daly/Goode

From there I hope EJ will start mixing things up in the 2nd and 3rd tests with the likes of George, Mullan, Launchbury, Youngs and Slade presumably as good as guaranteed to start a test. One (or possibly both) of Clifford and Harrison will get a chance in the back row too given how much rugby Robshaw, Haskell and Billy have gone through. Paul Hill would be a bolder guy to start for a test but it would be positive move given how talented he is.

propdavid_london wrote:I quite like the look of that Saxons squad - I would like to see a team like this -


Jake Cooper-Woolley (Wasps)
Tommy Taylor (Wasps)
Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints) *16 senior England caps
Mitch Lees (Exeter Chiefs)
Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby) *22 senior England caps
Dave Ewers (Exeter Chiefs)
Matthew Kvesic (Gloucester) * Two senior England caps
James Chisholm (Harlequins)

Dan Robson (Wasps)
Danny Cipriani (Wasps) *14 senior England caps
Alex Lewington (London Irish)
Sam Hill (Exeter Chiefs)
Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints) *13 senior England caps
Semesa Rokoduguni (Bath Rugby) *One senior England cap
Mike Haley (Sale Sharks)

Bench
McGuigan,
+2 props
Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby)
Donovan Armand (Exeter Chiefs)
Michael Young (Newcastle Falcons)
Ollie Devoto (Bath Rugby)

I'd change a few:

- Hepburn at LH
- Cooper-Woolley at TH
- Armand at 8
- Devoto at 12
- James at 13.

I'm pleased Craig is in - I always thought he had something about him. also good to see Hill and Tompkins there, as well as Ewels. I'm not sure why Chudley isn't ahead of Young though.

king_carlos wrote:With Manu confirmed injured I expect that for the first Oz test we will see a side as similar to the 6 Nations as possible. Probably something such as:

Mako, Hartley, Cole, Itoje, Kruis, Robshaw, Haskell, Billy
Care, Ford, Nowell, Farrell, Joseph, Watson, Brown

Reps: George, Mullan, Hill, Launchbury/Lawes, Clifford/Harrison, Youngs, Slade, Daly/Goode

From there I hope EJ will start mixing things up in the 2nd and 3rd tests with the likes of George, Mullan, Launchbury, Youngs and Slade presumably as good as guaranteed to start a test. One (or possibly both) of Clifford and Harrison will get a chance in the back row too given how much rugby Robshaw, Haskell and Billy have gone through. Paul Hill would be a bolder guy to start for a test but it would be positive move given how talented he is.

Whilst I think it will be mainly the same side, I think he'll make a couple of changes. He obviously realy rates Te'o, and so I'd expect him to start at 12 (hopefully with our best FH actually at FH). Secondly, I think he'll want a little more pace in the backrow, so that potentially means Harrison in at 7 and a decision to make at 6 (I expect Robshaw will keep the shirt).

After that, as you say, there should be a little more experimentation.

DaveM wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:I quite like the look of that Saxons squad - I would like to see a team like this -


Jake Cooper-Woolley (Wasps)
Tommy Taylor (Wasps)
Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints) *16 senior England caps
Mitch Lees (Exeter Chiefs)
Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby) *22 senior England caps
Dave Ewers (Exeter Chiefs)
Matthew Kvesic (Gloucester) * Two senior England caps
James Chisholm (Harlequins)

Dan Robson (Wasps)
Danny Cipriani (Wasps) *14 senior England caps
Alex Lewington (London Irish)
Sam Hill (Exeter Chiefs)
Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints) *13 senior England caps
Semesa Rokoduguni (Bath Rugby) *One senior England cap
Mike Haley (Sale Sharks)

Bench
McGuigan,
+2 props
Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby)
Donovan Armand (Exeter Chiefs)
Michael Young (Newcastle Falcons)
Ollie Devoto (Bath Rugby)

I'd change a few:

- Hepburn at LH
- Cooper-Woolley at TH
- Armand at 8
- Devoto at 12
- James at 13.

I'm pleased Craig is in - I always thought he had something about him. also good to see Hill and Tompkins there, as well as Ewels. I'm not sure why Chudley isn't ahead of Young though.

Possibly due to the length of suspension he is likely to get for trying to kick Lauchbury's head into touch

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

DaveM wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:I quite like the look of that Saxons squad - I would like to see a team like this -


Jake Cooper-Woolley (Wasps)
Tommy Taylor (Wasps)
Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints) *16 senior England caps
Mitch Lees (Exeter Chiefs)
Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby) *22 senior England caps
Dave Ewers (Exeter Chiefs)
Matthew Kvesic (Gloucester) * Two senior England caps
James Chisholm (Harlequins)

Dan Robson (Wasps)
Danny Cipriani (Wasps) *14 senior England caps
Alex Lewington (London Irish)
Sam Hill (Exeter Chiefs)
Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints) *13 senior England caps
Semesa Rokoduguni (Bath Rugby) *One senior England cap
Mike Haley (Sale Sharks)

Bench
McGuigan,
+2 props
Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby)
Donovan Armand (Exeter Chiefs)
Michael Young (Newcastle Falcons)
Ollie Devoto (Bath Rugby)

I'd change a few:

- Hepburn at LH
- Cooper-Woolley at TH
- Armand at 8
- Devoto at 12
- James at 13.

I'm pleased Craig is in - I always thought he had something about him. also good to see Hill and Tompkins there, as well as Ewels. I'm not sure why Chudley isn't ahead of Young though.

Possibly due to the length of suspension he is likely to get for trying to kick Lauchbury's head into touch

He'll be fine, it was the heat of the moment/non reckless/Not that sort of player, Sir (delete as appropriate)

It still hurts then Munkian. You'll get over it, time heals all.

Poorfour wrote:I seem to recall that the Toulon side that won the European Champions cup a couple of years back had 3 RWC semi-finalist fly halves playing 9, 10 and 12 and they didn't look too bad.

No-one ever complained about Mike Catt playing every position from 10-15 for England (though plenty of people complained about Mike Catt, at least prior to the 2003 RWC semifinal, where he played 12 with one of Toulon's 10s and against another one).

Richard Hill and Lawrence Dallaglio each played 6, 7 and 8 for England. And so on.

Some players can play multiple positions. Some players can't. But single position specialisation looks to me like a generational thing.

Players who grew up in the amateur era regularly played multiple positions - Jason Leonard talks about playing loosehead and tighthead within the same game depending on who got to the scrum first.

After 2003, we had the first generation of NH academy players coming through, most of them had been groomed for a single position, and the media for some reason got hung up on the idea that players should only play in one place. (Though that didn't stop them gushing about Tom Youngs, who never quite mastered the basics of his "second" position).

Nowadays, academies have adopted the SH late specialisation approach, and we are seeing players coming out who have grown up playing multiple positions. Some of them will settle in one position (Kyle Sinckler, who was a fullback before he became a tighthead, probably Harry Thacker now he's gone to hooker), but some of them can play multiple positions.

Farrell can play 10, 12 and 13 to a high standard. I would argue that the best argument for not playing him in the centres is the players he keeps out rather than any deficiency over and above the (fairly few) gaps he has as a 10.

Slade can also play 10, 12 and 13 - and probably would have played 12 in the 6N at some point if he hadn't been injured.

Mallinder has played 10, 12 and 15 IIRC. Marchant at Quins can play 10 and 13. Theo Brophy-Clews plays 10 & 12. No-one seems bothered at the idea of Watson as a long-term fullback.

In the forwards, Clifford used to play 12, which helps with the link play at 7 even if his size suggests that 6 or 8 might be best for him long term. Beaumont used to play 10, and I could see him playing lock long term (memories of John Eales, anyone?). James Chisholm has looked pretty handy across the back row, as has Underhill. Itoje, as beshocked will remind us, can play 6 (though Eddie doesn't see that as his best position).

We are training the current generation of players to be comfortable in multiple roles. This is something to celebrate - after all, the ABs have done it since the dawn of time and it's not done them much harm - and it gives us more options to perm a team to the required tactics and put the best players on the pitch rather than have to leave out good players because someone else is marginally better in their "preferred" position.

Excellent post I like it.

The All Blacks name is actually incorrect. The report in the paper in the early part of last century was that they were all so quick and skilled that they were "all backs" , but somewhere there was a communication breakdown so this translated to "All Blacks" due to the colour of their strip.

Poorfour wrote:I seem to recall that the Toulon side that won the European Champions cup a couple of years back had 3 RWC semi-finalist fly halves playing 9, 10 and 12 and they didn't look too bad.

No-one ever complained about Mike Catt playing every position from 10-15 for England (though plenty of people complained about Mike Catt, at least prior to the 2003 RWC semifinal, where he played 12 with one of Toulon's 10s and against another one).

Richard Hill and Lawrence Dallaglio each played 6, 7 and 8 for England. And so on.

Some players can play multiple positions. Some players can't. But single position specialisation looks to me like a generational thing.

Players who grew up in the amateur era regularly played multiple positions - Jason Leonard talks about playing loosehead and tighthead within the same game depending on who got to the scrum first.

After 2003, we had the first generation of NH academy players coming through, most of them had been groomed for a single position, and the media for some reason got hung up on the idea that players should only play in one place. (Though that didn't stop them gushing about Tom Youngs, who never quite mastered the basics of his "second" position).

Nowadays, academies have adopted the SH late specialisation approach, and we are seeing players coming out who have grown up playing multiple positions. Some of them will settle in one position (Kyle Sinckler, who was a fullback before he became a tighthead, probably Harry Thacker now he's gone to hooker), but some of them can play multiple positions.

Farrell can play 10, 12 and 13 to a high standard. I would argue that the best argument for not playing him in the centres is the players he keeps out rather than any deficiency over and above the (fairly few) gaps he has as a 10.

Slade can also play 10, 12 and 13 - and probably would have played 12 in the 6N at some point if he hadn't been injured.

Mallinder has played 10, 12 and 15 IIRC. Marchant at Quins can play 10 and 13. Theo Brophy-Clews plays 10 & 12. No-one seems bothered at the idea of Watson as a long-term fullback.

In the forwards, Clifford used to play 12, which helps with the link play at 7 even if his size suggests that 6 or 8 might be best for him long term. Beaumont used to play 10, and I could see him playing lock long term (memories of John Eales, anyone?). James Chisholm has looked pretty handy across the back row, as has Underhill. Itoje, as beshocked will remind us, can play 6 (though Eddie doesn't see that as his best position).

We are training the current generation of players to be comfortable in multiple roles. This is something to celebrate - after all, the ABs have done it since the dawn of time and it's not done them much harm - and it gives us more options to perm a team to the required tactics and put the best players on the pitch rather than have to leave out good players because someone else is marginally better in their "preferred" position.

Poorfour you are talking about world class players like Hill and Dallaglio. Catt might have not been world class but he was a very good player.

Giteau is a very experienced international.

I wouldn't put many players at their level! It's not normal to play different positions to a very high level. You make out as if anyone can just play any position.

Farrell can play 12 and 13 but he's about no more than mediocre. Would rather he proves himself more as a 10 than focus on being a mediocre centre.

Slade is unproven at international in every position. Same with Mallinder.

Marchant hasn't proven he's club class yet let alone any other position.

You can throw as many names out there as you want but if they don't deliver then it's pointless.

Itoje has played 6 but he's going strong at lock so let's not squander his development.


I want players to excel in one position first before looking at others.

England have a lack of world class players, need to develop some first before thinking of players being world class in two or more positions....

Not really about that but about picking the best team possible. If that is playing Slade at 12 where's the problem?

Poorfour wrote:Players who grew up in the amateur era regularly played multiple positions - Jason Leonard talks about playing loosehead and tighthead within the same game depending on who got to the scrum first.

I love this!

No 7&1/2 wrote:It still hurts then Munkian. You'll get over it, time heals all.

Not on the Internet

I think players playing in different positions before nailing one down can really help them

You mention that those named by Poorfour are world class players, but they weren't at the time they broke into the side, they were just the equivalent of the Henry Slade's and Jack Clifford's 20 years ago

I've said this before, but the SH sides seem a lot better at developing their players this way, get them on the field where they can use their talents but always with a view that eventually the most talented will lock down a position

Australia have had the following line up with varying degrees of success
Giteau (10 and 12)
Ashley-Cooper (anywhere from 11-15 I think)
Beale (10, 12, 15)
JOC (10 - 15)

NZ
Umaga (started on the wing)
Carter (started at 12)
Ben Smith (13 - 15)

I see nothing wrong with talented players developing their skills across multiple positions if they're good enough

In todays games aside from 1 or two positions it doesn't matter what number you have on your back.

Bambam we should prioritise developing world class players over trying to get jack of trades, master of none players IMO.

If there are players that can play more than one position to a high level then good but they are rare.

In regards to Slade I want him to excel in one position first before trying to play him across the whole backline personally. Don't think it's fair on him to expect him to hit the ground running in 3 different positions. A player needs some continuity.

England have plenty of depth - it's the strength, that rare quality that makes someone stand out from the crowd that we've been lacking. In particular positions anyway.

Numerous centres have come and gone since Greenwood, T'eo and Slade are just another two from a huge list.

Would love Slade to be the player who can solve the longstanding centre issue but let's see what he can do first.

Tommy Taylor looks like hes straight out of the diddy hooker club. Haven't seen much of him but what I saw was a very quick hooker but not a very strong scrummager. England and Eddie will never have that mean, robust and strong scrum they long for if he selects little 'uns like Taylor. Reminds me of Mears and Youngs. People like Bismarck DuPlessis eat that type for breakfast.

beshocked wrote:Bambam we should prioritise developing world class players over trying to get jack of trades, master of none players IMO.

If there are players that can play more than one position to a high level then good but they are rare.

In regards to Slade I want him to excel in one position first before trying to play him across the whole backline personally. Don't think it's fair on him to expect him to hit the ground running in 3 different positions. A player needs some continuity.

England have plenty of depth - it's the strength, that rare quality that makes someone stand out from the crowd that we've been lacking. In particular positions anyway.

Numerous centres have come and gone since Greenwood, T'eo and Slade are just another two from a huge list.

Would love Slade to be the player who can solve the longstanding centre issue but let's see what he can do first.

I think we differ in that you think I'm advocating players to be jack of all trades, but I'm actually saying let them see "all trades" (they can handle) before they become the master of one

If Slade is going to be a 10 long term for England, would the odd game at 12 really hinder his development?

Think about the key points for a 10

He'd have the chance to test his defence against bigger centres
He'd be able to step into first receiver and challenge the line/make his passes knowing that he has either Ford/Farrell close by as support
He'd have slightly more time on the ball when playing as the 12
He'd have plenty of opportunities to show his kicking skills, as a 2nd option

If he is the long term 12, he'll own the spot from that moment and keep it

By starting at 13 (which I don't expect him to for England), he'd have to defend at the most difficult position, and show he can bring his outside runners into play

I don't see how any of this can be a bad thing for a young fly half/centre who has shown he has the talent to potentially be a very good international

englandglory4ever wrote:Tommy Taylor looks like hes straight out of the diddy hooker club. Haven't seen much of him but what I saw was a very quick hooker but not a very strong scrummager. England and Eddie will never have that mean, robust and strong scrum they long for if he selects little 'uns like Taylor. Reminds me of Mears and Youngs. People like Bismarck DuPlessis eat that type for breakfast.

He's apparently 6ft 2 but I think he could pack on a bit of weight

So beshocked the original point was that you didn't seem to want more than 1 fly half in the team, so you would only consider Slade at 10 despite the potential he has in midfield?

You've questioned the size of Taylor before E4E, you actually seen him play yet?

The thing in particular about 10 is that its such a crucial position that it is very common to give players experience in related positions first, typically at 12 or possibly at 15. Saint Johnny got early caps at 12 for example.

You can get scenarios like at Exeter where I believe Slade nominally lines up at outside center but will line up at inside depending on whats going on.

You also get natural evolutions as players change. Dallaglio started at 7 and occasionally 6, but bulked up and moved to 8 full time when knee injuries killed his top end pace. Plenty (like Tim Rodber) go from 6 to lock, and plenty of players move between center positions, center and wing, and wing and full back

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

DaveM wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:I quite like the look of that Saxons squad - I would like to see a team like this -


Jake Cooper-Woolley (Wasps)
Tommy Taylor (Wasps)
Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints) *16 senior England caps
Mitch Lees (Exeter Chiefs)
Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby) *22 senior England caps
Dave Ewers (Exeter Chiefs)
Matthew Kvesic (Gloucester) * Two senior England caps
James Chisholm (Harlequins)

Dan Robson (Wasps)
Danny Cipriani (Wasps) *14 senior England caps
Alex Lewington (London Irish)
Sam Hill (Exeter Chiefs)
Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints) *13 senior England caps
Semesa Rokoduguni (Bath Rugby) *One senior England cap
Mike Haley (Sale Sharks)

Bench
McGuigan,
+2 props
Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby)
Donovan Armand (Exeter Chiefs)
Michael Young (Newcastle Falcons)
Ollie Devoto (Bath Rugby)

I'd change a few:

- Hepburn at LH
- Cooper-Woolley at TH
- Armand at 8
- Devoto at 12
- James at 13.

I'm pleased Craig is in - I always thought he had something about him. also good to see Hill and Tompkins there, as well as Ewels. I'm not sure why Chudley isn't ahead of Young though.

Possibly due to the length of suspension he is likely to get for trying to kick Lauchbury's head into touch

Just seen that he's been cleared

Flanker to hooker is another fairly common shift. Ashley Johnson is a recent high profile example but Stuart McInally has made the transition for Edinburgh and Scotland as well. It seems to work quite well with stocky powerful flankers around the 6ft1 - 6ft3 range.

Ross Ford started as a flanker, as did Steve Thompson. I actually think James Haskell could have been converted into a very decent hooker as well.

Chuckle

lostinwales wrote:The thing in particular about 10 is that its such a crucial position that it is very common to give players experience in related positions first, typically at 12 or possibly at 15. Saint Johnny got early caps at 12 for example.

JW also played outside Rob Andrew early in his Falcons career. Wasn't his first cap as a replacement on the wing?

Farrell's first caps were in the centre with Hodgson at 10, and of course he played outside Ford for the U20s.

Some other guys have already been mentioned as starting further out and settling at 10 when more experienced - but you can add Michael Lynagh and Stephen Larkham to that list.

I have to agree with 7.5 and the thing we want is the strongest side possible- if that means Ford 10, Farrell 12 and Slade 13 then that is what should happen (I do not believe it does, but that is beside the point).

funnyExiledScot wrote:Flanker to hooker is another fairly common shift. Ashley Johnson is a recent high profile example but Stuart McInally has made the transition for Edinburgh and Scotland as well. It seems to work quite well with stocky powerful flankers around the 6ft1 - 6ft3 range.

Ross Ford started as a flanker, as did Steve Thompson. I actually think James Haskell could have been converted into a very decent hooker as well.

Bobby Vickers moved from hooker to become the premier leagues best LH prop this season

The premier league

Or the premiership....

Still a chance for Vickers at 10 then?

I think he could turn a hand to it yes....

He's dynamite 1 foot from the try line