England tour to Argentina

First topic message reminder :

It has been touched on in other threads but thought it was worth its own post.  
With the Lions touring to NZ there will be an opportunity for EJ to test some fresh talent.  Who would you like to see?

Interesting fact...the last time Wade was capped was the last tour to Argentina when he was also called into the Lions.
Clifford is now ruled out as having shoulder surgery - http://www.quins.co.uk/news/jack-clifford-injury-update/

I am working on the assumption that Lions call ups will be - Hartley, George, Cole, Itoje, Lawes, Mako V, Billy V, Launchbury, Youngs, Farrell, Joseph, Watson, Daly, Haskell, Brown......(there will be others I am sure and possibly some of these wont go).

But on that assumption and picking 2 in each position I would think that the tour selection group could be something like this - (from EPS and Saxons)
1. Marler, Genge
2. Taylor, LCD
3. Sinkler, Catt (not sure if he is TH or LH)
4. Kruis, Attwood
5. Ewels , ?
6. Robshaw, D.Armond
7. T.Harrison, T.Wood
8. Hughes, J.Chisholm
9. Care, Robson
10. Ford, Slade
11.J.May, Rokko
12.Ben Teo, ?
13.? ?
14.Yarde, Wade
15.Lozowski, Goode

Those are the chaps that I can think of from the current EPS and Saxons - There are a number that I am sure wont be included and a number from outside the squads that might have a run.
Guys like Solomona have been mentioned, Underhill, Beaumont, youngsters from U20s - Malinder, Marchant,
Who is a good option for 13?

UPDATED WITH SELECTED SQUAD -
Forwards
Will Collier (Harlequins, uncapped)
Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs, 4 caps)
Ben Curry (Sale Sharks, uncapped)
Tom Curry (Sale Sharks, uncapped)
Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby, 3 caps)
Ellis Genge (Leicester Tigers, 1 cap)
Dylan Hartley – captain (Northampton Saints, 84 caps)
James Haskell (Wasps, 75 caps)
Paul Hill (Northampton Saints, 5 caps)
Nathan Hughes (Wasps, 8 caps)
Nick Isiekwe (Saracens, uncapped)
Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 42 caps)
Matt Mullan (Wasps, 15 caps)
Chris Robshaw (Harlequins, 55 caps)
Sam Underhill (Ospreys/Bath Rugby, uncapped)
Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs, uncapped)
Tom Wood (Northampton Saints, 50 caps)

Backs
Mike Brown – vice-captain (Harlequins, 60 caps)
Danny Care – vice captain (Harlequins, 71 caps)
Joe Cokanasiga (London Irish, uncapped)
Nathan Earle (Saracens, uncapped)
George Ford – vice captain (Bath Rugby, 35 caps)
Piers Francis (Auckland Blues/Northampton Saints, uncapped)
Sam James (Sale Sharks, uncapped)
Alex Lozowski (Saracens, uncapped)
Harry Mallinder (Northampton Saints, uncapped)
Joe Marchant (Harlequins, uncapped)
Jack Maunder (Exeter Chiefs, uncapped)
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby, 25 caps)
Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 4 caps)
Denny Solomona (Sale Sharks, uncapped)

Unavailable for selection due to injury
Jack Clifford (Harlequins)
Sam Jones (Wasps)

England’s two-Test tour to Argentina
Estadio San Juan del Bicentenario, San Juan, Kick-off 16:15 (local time), Saturday 10th June
Estadio Brigadier General Estanislao Lopez, Santa Fe. Kick-off 16:15 (local time), Saturday 17th June

Finally watched the 2nd half.

Curry very good - great turnovers and smart. Wilson was also very good. I don't think Beaumont is suited to be no.8 for England the way he plays and I'd suspect this was the last we'll see of him. Wilson was so much more effective and he'd not strictly an 8.

I don't think Wood will play for England again either.

Honorable mention for May. Yes he didn't score and had the early brainfart, but in general he was very good, solid in defense and electric in attack -  and he made Isekewa's try.

Another for Ford come to think of it. His defence is actually very good. He's never going to put in the big hits so he's smart enough not to try (and therefore avoids one of the major causes for injuries) but he's very good at getting his man on the ground and I'd suspect he misses very few tackles.

lostinwales wrote:Finally watched the 2nd half.

Curry very good - great turnovers and smart. Wilson was also very good. I don't think Beaumont is suited to be no.8 for England the way he plays and I'd suspect this was the last we'll see of him. Wilson was so much more effective and he'd not strictly an 8.

I don't think Wood will play for England again either.

Honorable mention for May. Yes he didn't score and had the early brainfart, but in general he was very good, solid in defense and electric in attack -  and he made Isekewa's try.

Another for Ford come to think of it. His defence is actually very good. He's never going to put in the big hits so he's smart enough not to try (and therefore avoids one of the major causes for injuries) but he's very good at getting his man on the ground and I'd suspect he misses very few tackles.

As usual, the big questions are going to be can we find the right combination of players in the back row, and in the centres. It's always the same for us. We have a whole load of players who could be good enough, but no real way to know if they will be beyond trying them all out. I think we'll get closer to cracking it with the back row, but the centres and FH, I really have no idea what the combo should be.

I do know Wood is not up to it in the back row. He should be absolutely miles down the pecking order.

Actually, come to think of it, I also don't know what our best lock combination is! Personally I'd say Lawes and Launchbury are the most in form, but Kruis and Itoje are superb.

Kruis + 1 other, possibly Lawes currently with Itoje not quite reaching the heights of last season. Kruis is the mainstay for me as he's an excellent lineout technician in both attack and defence, the others do not have this skill.

I think it'd be Lawes +1 for me. Awhile back I'd have had him last of those four, but he covers the one area of weakness for me in our locks - none of them are great carriers. Again, I'd put him dead last awhile back, but this year he seems to be the only lock really carrying and making yards, and in doing so punching well above his weight.

I think we have the most rounded quartet of locks of any country, but I'd love them to be a bit more abrasive. I think Itoje's character is definitely a huge plus in that regard.

I can't agree that Lawes is a good carrier, I actually think he's the worst of the 4.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I can't agree that Lawes is a good carrier, I actually think he's the worst of the 4.

As I say, I'd have agreed up until this season. Too upright, too lightweight. But he's been the only one I've seen make yards in traffic (an absolute surprise to me) this year. I know Jones has asked him to carry more and it seemed to me he was doing so.

But then again I've not seen stats or anything, and it might just have been a short purple patch. Overall it's a big weakness in our locks I think, when you compare to Whitelock and Retalick

Did you watch the Saints vs Stade game. Lawes looked in bits but played like a warrior and was rightly mom.

In the post match interview he actually said he hadn't been feeling very well and didn't think he was going to play.  

For all the romanticism of the Lions I do wish he was either being rested or was just oft to Argentina for a game, some steaks and beer.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Kruis + 1 other, possibly Lawes currently with Itoje not quite reaching the heights of last season. Kruis is the mainstay for me as he's an excellent lineout technician in both attack and defence, the others do not have this skill.

Lawes and Itoje not good lineout technicians? What?

Scottrf wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Kruis + 1 other, possibly Lawes currently with Itoje not quite reaching the heights of last season. Kruis is the mainstay for me as he's an excellent lineout technician in both attack and defence, the others do not have this skill.

Lawes and Itoje not good lineout technicians? What?

Where have you got that from?? I said Kruis was excellent, which he is. Our lineout is much stronger with him running it and our lineout defence about 100x better. Look at the amount of ball we steal with Kruis in the side compared to out. I didn't mention Lawes or Itoje....both of whom are very good options but not in the same class at running the line.

From where you said the others do not have this ability?

They have both called linout for club and country, get steals and are a primary receiving option. Kruis may be better but I don't think to the extent it makes him a must pick on that alone.

Scottrf wrote:From where you said the others do not have this ability?

They have both called linout for club and country, get steals and are a primary receiving option. Kruis may be better but I don't think to the extent it makes him a must pick on that alone.

Just seen that.

They are good options, I don't think Itoje calls tbh. Kruis is on a different level though imo. Look at last 6N's when he and Itoje in tandem stole bags of opposition ball. THis 6N, we hardly stole any and when we came up a good set-piece side(in Ireland), we struggled. I think Kruis is a world class operator in the lineout, I don't think Lawes and Itoje are.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.standard.co.uk/sport/rugby/maro-itoje-calling-the-shots-as-england-display-lineout-dominance-a3479721.html%3Famp

I meant Itoje not calling for Saracens. As I mentioned, we came apart somewhat against Ireland and didn't offer hardly threat on opposition ball over the 6N. I'm not doubting they can call, but Kruis is on a different level, he's up there with the best.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I meant Itoje not calling for Saracens. As I mentioned, we came apart somewhat against Ireland and didn't offer hardly threat on opposition ball over the 6N. I'm not doubting they can call, but Kruis is on a different level, he's up there with the best.

All said and done we're tremendously fortunate to have the plethora of second rows available to us. Genuinely this is an area where we can compete with the AB's and so I would really like to see a Itoje/Kruis Lions selection with Lawes on the bench.

Itoje and Kruis have both had period's of injury this season that may aid them in terms of their overall conditioning. How Launchbury fares in Argentina alongside Ewels and Isiekwe will provide a very interesting comparison. I think Launchbury/Ewels has a good balance to it.

I'm looking forward to see what Isiekwe offers - he looked good against the Baa-baas, although the lineout throwing was dreadful. He was all over the pitch at the breakdown and in the loose. I don't think he'll start unless there's injuries, but it will be a very useful experience for him and he certainly should end up with at least 1 cap.

England have rarely been without half-decent locks, but with the latest bunch we are being spoiled for choice. Kruis, Itoje, Lawes, Launchbury have been superb, and now Ewels and Isiekwe on tour, they'll have a chance to put their markers down. Right now, we're pretty stacked.

Mr Bounce wrote:I'm looking forward to see what Isiekwe offers - he looked good against the Baa-baas, although the lineout throwing was dreadful. He was all over the pitch at the breakdown and in the loose. I don't think he'll start unless there's injuries, but it will be a very useful experience for him and he certainly should end up with at least 1 cap.

England have rarely been without half-decent locks, but with the latest bunch we are being spoiled for choice. Kruis, Itoje, Lawes, Launchbury have been superb, and now Ewels and Isiekwe on tour, they'll have a chance to put their markers down. Right now, we're pretty stacked.

There's still a fair few sat at home who could play at international level but must be wondering if or when will they ever get the chance. Symons at Wasps, Slater/Kitchener/Barrow at Tigers etc. Lock is a luxury position as present. There's a lot of pressure to perform. I like that Jones is capping some younger guys as well because it's a great motivator for them and for the experienced pros looking over their shoulders.

Symons was the great hope that never quite materialised for me. He looked a world beater for the Chiefs but has been nothing past an average AP lock since coming over. I'd dare say Green at Falcons has been a better player over the last season.

Dont forget Robinson aswell. Dean Richards rates him so highly and he's never likely to be thought of for England.

That's how strong Englands lock options are at the moment.

Any way back on topic..back row will be fine. We have genuine options in all positions although maybe we are missing a huge bruising 6 coming through?

Not as imposing but Josh Bayliss continues to impress me on the blindside of the U20's...though he's not a big guy.

As to the Centres

Mallinder - needs to improve defensively (he may have improved, but he doesn't use his size well enough)
Sam James - Looks a real prospect at 12 if you ask me. Good hands, good size, has the physicality when required, and runs great lines aswell.
Farrell - Has took the 12 role in his usaual manner! But is he the long term 12?
Joseph - Classy 13
Marchant - Potential classy challenger to Joseph
Slade - We're waiting for him to really smash that potential.
Lozowski - A 10, but could he be another playmaking 12?
T'eo - A bruising 12...and a B&I Lion!

For Argentina i'd like to see:

10 Ford
12 Slade
13 James

But with lots of interchange between 12 and 13

Don't forget Daly there GF!

Or Devoto. He's got size and all the skills (and has kept Slade on the bench for Chief's). I'd have him as the starting 12 in the first Test.

Mr Bounce wrote:I'm looking forward to see what Isiekwe offers - he looked good against the Baa-baas, although the lineout throwing was dreadful. He was all over the pitch at the breakdown and in the loose. I don't think he'll start unless there's injuries, but it will be a very useful experience for him and he certainly should end up with at least 1 cap.

England have rarely been without half-decent locks, but with the latest bunch we are being spoiled for choice. Kruis, Itoje, Lawes, Launchbury have been superb, and now Ewels and Isiekwe on tour, they'll have a chance to put their markers down. Right now, we're pretty stacked.

The one thing we don't have is a lock like Retalick i.e. someone who can also carry and is a little...nasty. It's a slight quibble though as it's probably as good a group of locks as I can remember, and if we play to utilise a mobile pack, they could all be world class level.

As ever the one area we can never compete with the ABs is centre...in fact, all the backs really.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Dont forget Robinson aswell. Dean Richards rates him so highly and he's never likely to be thought of for England.

That's how strong Englands lock options are at the moment.

Any way back on topic..back row will be fine. We have genuine options in all positions although maybe we are missing a huge bruising 6 coming through?

Not as imposing but Josh Bayliss continues to impress me on the blindside of the U20's...though he's not a big guy.

As to the Centres

Mallinder - needs to improve defensively (he may have improved, but he doesn't use his size well enough)
Sam James - Looks a real prospect at 12 if you ask me. Good hands, good size, has the physicality when required, and runs great lines aswell.
Farrell - Has took the 12 role in his usaual manner! But is he the long term 12?
Joseph - Classy 13
Marchant - Potential classy challenger to Joseph
Slade - We're waiting for him to really smash that potential.
Lozowski - A 10, but could he be another playmaking 12?
T'eo - A bruising 12...and a B&I Lion!

For Argentina i'd like to see:

10 Ford
12 Slade
13 James

But with lots of interchange between 12 and 13

This. I always felt Haskell was vastly underrated and under-utilised. I think he'll be a tough act to follow. We just don't have anyone that big and mobile, at his best he can carry well, tackle all day, and crucially stop the opposition on the gainline. There's no one really with that physicality coming through, sadly. As good as Underhill could be I don't think he has the build to do what Haskell does. He's a different player.

Underhill is the closest I think we have to the physicality of Haskell. He stops carriers on the gain line and forces them back, he's quite a unit and seems extremely powerful. I think his work over the ball is better than Haskell's but we need to see him carrying more.

Devoto is a good shout at 12 for the tour, he has all of the attributes needed and is a stronger defender than Mallinder currently is. He's looked good for Exeter of late and is certainly that physical option in the centres we need.

Devote is coming back a bit now after his underwhelming bath end. Haskell meh. He's probably with Robshaw still our best option in the back row but I doubt we'll miss him when he's gone.

Hood83 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Dont forget Robinson aswell. Dean Richards rates him so highly and he's never likely to be thought of for England.

That's how strong Englands lock options are at the moment.

Any way back on topic..back row will be fine. We have genuine options in all positions although maybe we are missing a huge bruising 6 coming through?

Not as imposing but Josh Bayliss continues to impress me on the blindside of the U20's...though he's not a big guy.

As to the Centres

Mallinder - needs to improve defensively (he may have improved, but he doesn't use his size well enough)
Sam James - Looks a real prospect at 12 if you ask me. Good hands, good size, has the physicality when required, and runs great lines aswell.
Farrell - Has took the 12 role in his usaual manner! But is he the long term 12?
Joseph - Classy 13
Marchant - Potential classy challenger to Joseph
Slade - We're waiting for him to really smash that potential.
Lozowski - A 10, but could he be another playmaking 12?
T'eo - A bruising 12...and a B&I Lion!

For Argentina i'd like to see:

10 Ford
12 Slade
13 James

But with lots of interchange between 12 and 13

This. I always felt Haskell was vastly underrated and under-utilised. I think he'll be a tough act to follow. We just don't have anyone that big and mobile, at his best he can carry well, tackle all day, and crucially stop the opposition on the gainline. There's no one really with that physicality coming through, sadly. As good as Underhill could be I don't think he has the build to do what Haskell does. He's a different player.

Unfortunately I think Haskell has been inconsistent throughout his career. In beast mode he's great (excellent 2016) but not a great 2017 so far.

Disappointed with his performance in the AP final. Perhaps he's still suffering from a niggle, he just doesn't look up to speed yet.

2016 showed us what a Haskell look likes when he can string some performances together but now he seems off colour again IMO.

beshocked wrote:2016 showed us what a Haskell look likes when he can string some performances together but now he seems off colour again IMO.

I don't think he's recovered from that foot injury. I wonder if, at the back of his mind, he has doubts about making it to the next World Cup. If so, then he might see the Lions as his career swan song, and bust a gut in NZ. Obviously, that could increase the risk of injuring himself again this summer.

Rugby Fan wrote:

beshocked wrote:2016 showed us what a Haskell look likes when he can string some performances together but now he seems off colour again IMO.

I don't think he's recovered from that foot injury. I wonder if, at the back of his mind, he has doubts about making it to the next World Cup. If so, then he might see the Lions as his career swan song, and bust a gut in NZ. Obviously, that could increase the risk of injuring himself again this summer.

Well some players do keep playing despite having knocks/injuries.

Billy supposedly went through both the Champions Cup final and AP semi carrying an injury. He's sacrificing the Lions tour to get fit.

Makes you wonder if Haskell should have just taken the summer off, if his foot injury is that serious.

Hughes didn't look right in the AP final either despite playing well.

I do think there is a tendency for players to push through the pain and fatigue when they shouldn't. On one hand you could call it bravery, on the other foolish to risk their health.

I can see Haskell's point of view, as you say he's not getting any younger at 32 whilst Billy is still only 24.

beshocked wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

beshocked wrote:2016 showed us what a Haskell look likes when he can string some performances together but now he seems off colour again IMO.

I don't think he's recovered from that foot injury. I wonder if, at the back of his mind, he has doubts about making it to the next World Cup. If so, then he might see the Lions as his career swan song, and bust a gut in NZ. Obviously, that could increase the risk of injuring himself again this summer.

Well some players do keep playing despite having knocks/injuries.

Billy supposedly went through both the Champions Cup final and AP semi carrying an injury. He's sacrificing the Lions tour to get fit.

Makes you wonder if Haskell should have just taken the summer off, if his foot injury is that serious.

Hughes didn't look right in the AP final either despite playing well.

I do think there is a tendency for players to push through the pain and fatigue when they shouldn't. On one hand you could call it bravery, on the other foolish to risk their health.

I can see Haskell's point of view, as you say he's not getting any younger at 32 whilst Billy is still only 24.

I agree, there at completely different points in their career. If Haskell can go on a Lions tour at 32, then Vunipola potentially has at least 8 years and 80 caps of international rugby left, including 2 World Cups and 2 Lions tours.

Would you trade a chance of 40 years with a limp for a chance to play in a Lions team in New Zealand?

Don't forget Daly there GF!

Or Devoto. He's got size and all the skills (and has kept Slade on the bench for Chief's). I'd have him as the starting 12 in the first Test.

Absolutely gents I forgot about Daly and Devoto, though I suspect Daly is the one Jones has earmarked for that 15 spot!

Is Underhill a good carrier?

I suppose if you Underhill is a physical as some are saying and far better at the breakdown than Haskell then its not an issue.

I suspect the pack is moving in the direction of medium sized tough, mobile technical players rather than monstrous beasts....

Ironically the way Lancaster was moving...yet Jones seems to be getting it right...and they have kept their physicality which seemed to be lost under Lancaster...

Plus Jones is lucky he has players like Genge, Sinkler, Underhill etc etc all coming through.

Move from Bath to Exeter certainly does seem to have helped Devoto.

Geordiefalcon about the right balance. You need a good mix of power and skill.

It is about balance, but only if you have the players to give you balance.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Is Underhill a good carrier?

I suppose if you Underhill is a physical as some are saying and far better at the breakdown than Haskell then its not an issue.

I suspect the pack is moving in the direction of medium sized tough, mobile technical players rather than monstrous beasts....

Ironically the way Lancaster was moving...yet Jones seems to be getting it right...and they have kept their physicality which seemed to be lost under Lancaster...

Plus Jones is lucky he has players like Genge, Sinkler, Underhill etc etc all coming through.

Lancaster's issue was that he tried to do too much too fast and it didn't come off - Eddie is evolving things a bit more slowly, because he has the benefit of the squad that Lancaster developed. History will be (fairly) kind to Bomber, in time.

The way I see it, Eddie is building England's attack mainly around the 12 and 13 axis, using Farrell's distribution and JJ's feet to unlock defences, with 8 & 9 providing some variety. Elsewhere the focus seems to be on hitting the gainline and getting the ball back safely, whether it's the carriers in the pack or Brown's returning. It's noticeable that the players England most missed against Ireland weren't the carriers, but the forwards who secure possession and control the game.

Poorfour wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Is Underhill a good carrier?

I suppose if you Underhill is a physical as some are saying and far better at the breakdown than Haskell then its not an issue.

I suspect the pack is moving in the direction of medium sized tough, mobile technical players rather than monstrous beasts....

Ironically the way Lancaster was moving...yet Jones seems to be getting it right...and they have kept their physicality which seemed to be lost under Lancaster...

Plus Jones is lucky he has players like Genge, Sinkler, Underhill etc etc all coming through.

Lancaster's issue was that he tried to do too much too fast and it didn't come off - Eddie is evolving things a bit more slowly, because he has the benefit of the squad that Lancaster developed. History will be (fairly) kind to Bomber, in time.

The way I see it, Eddie is building England's attack mainly around the 12 and 13 axis, using Farrell's distribution and JJ's feet to unlock defences, with 8 & 9 providing some variety. Elsewhere the focus seems to be on hitting the gainline and getting the ball back safely, whether it's the carriers in the pack or Brown's returning. It's noticeable that the players England most missed against Ireland weren't the carriers, but the forwards who secure possession and control the game.

Like Mr Robshaw.....

I respect Lancaster for what he did. Your right, that many of these players came through under him so Jones has indeed benefited.

It'll be interesting to see who he goes with that back five in real 1st class tests. (Ie his first choice)

I suspect these are in stone:

5 Kruis
6 Robshaw
8 BIlly


Means a lock and the openside spot are up for grabs (In my opinion anyway)

Poorfour wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Is Underhill a good carrier?

I suppose if you Underhill is a physical as some are saying and far better at the breakdown than Haskell then its not an issue.

I suspect the pack is moving in the direction of medium sized tough, mobile technical players rather than monstrous beasts....

Ironically the way Lancaster was moving...yet Jones seems to be getting it right...and they have kept their physicality which seemed to be lost under Lancaster...

Plus Jones is lucky he has players like Genge, Sinkler, Underhill etc etc all coming through.

Lancaster's issue was that he tried to do too much too fast and it didn't come off - Eddie is evolving things a bit more slowly, because he has the benefit of the squad that Lancaster developed. History will be (fairly) kind to Bomber, in time.

The way I see it, Eddie is building England's attack mainly around the 12 and 13 axis, using Farrell's distribution and JJ's feet to unlock defences, with 8 & 9 providing some variety. Elsewhere the focus seems to be on hitting the gainline and getting the ball back safely, whether it's the carriers in the pack or Brown's returning. It's noticeable that the players England most missed against Ireland weren't the carriers, but the forwards who secure possession and control the game.

Poorfour Lancaster has his qualities but his team more often than not didn't win the biggest games. Going out of the pool stages of your own RWC is something, Lancaster will always be blamed for.

Jones has won most of the big games, only losing 1.

He's also looking to work on his backrow options.

As if Lancaster was too fast - holding back Itoje and George.

Lancaster ignored Itoje, didn't work out so well, ignoring George too.

His treatment of Burgess was poor, parachuting him into the England side too soon.

In time Burgess might have been an excellent rugby union player but too much pressure and rushed him.

Took wrong gambles. Jones has also been smarter with the bench - more often than not making good decisions.

I know Lancaster still has a significant fan base, those who praised his numerous narrow losses in big games. Lancaster would be looked at in a more positive light if he won more of the bigger games.

Every game for England is a big game. England has a better set of players now than 5 years ago. They'll have a better set in 2 years than they do now. Some of those players will be the same but improved with experience.

beshocked wrote:Lancaster ignored Itoje

Hardly. The World Cup would have been the earliest realistic chance to bring him into the squad, and he made the training squad.

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Lancaster ignored Itoje

Hardly. The World Cup would have been the earliest realistic chance to bring him into the squad, and he made the training squad.

I agree

I think we're building towards a new flank combination over the next year or so. Haskell is quality, but on the wrong side of 30 to persevere with. I've never rated Robshaw that highly personally and suspect he'll be dropped within 18months.

Plenty of young, exciting, dynamaic backrowers coming through, time to step up lads.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Lancaster ignored Itoje

Hardly. The World Cup would have been the earliest realistic chance to bring him into the squad, and he made the training squad.

I agree

Whilst Mark McCall has stated that RWC2015 was too early for Maro - and without the pre-season and early season games for Sarries in 2015 he would not have been ready when Eddie came knocking. Young players can improve so quickly that we can at times fall into the mistake of assuming if they were good in 2016 they would have been good in 2015.

This is a good quote:

"If Maro Itoje is as good as Lancaster says he needs to be drafted into the Sarries side with all the backrow injuries racking up."

beshocked wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Is Underhill a good carrier?

I suppose if you Underhill is a physical as some are saying and far better at the breakdown than Haskell then its not an issue.

I suspect the pack is moving in the direction of medium sized tough, mobile technical players rather than monstrous beasts....

Ironically the way Lancaster was moving...yet Jones seems to be getting it right...and they have kept their physicality which seemed to be lost under Lancaster...

Plus Jones is lucky he has players like Genge, Sinkler, Underhill etc etc all coming through.

Lancaster's issue was that he tried to do too much too fast and it didn't come off - Eddie is evolving things a bit more slowly, because he has the benefit of the squad that Lancaster developed. History will be (fairly) kind to Bomber, in time.

The way I see it, Eddie is building England's attack mainly around the 12 and 13 axis, using Farrell's distribution and JJ's feet to unlock defences, with 8 & 9 providing some variety. Elsewhere the focus seems to be on hitting the gainline and getting the ball back safely, whether it's the carriers in the pack or Brown's returning. It's noticeable that the players England most missed against Ireland weren't the carriers, but the forwards who secure possession and control the game.

Poorfour Lancaster has his qualities but his team more often than not didn't win the biggest games. Going out of the pool stages of your own RWC is something, Lancaster will always be blamed for.

Jones has won most of the big games, only losing 1.

He's also looking to work on his backrow options.

As if Lancaster was too fast - holding back Itoje and George.

Lancaster ignored Itoje, didn't work out so well, ignoring George too.

His treatment of Burgess was poor, parachuting him into the England side too soon.

In time Burgess might have been an excellent rugby union player but too much pressure and rushed him.

Took wrong gambles. Jones has also been smarter with the bench - more often than not making good decisions.

I know Lancaster still has a significant fan base, those who praised his numerous narrow losses in big games. Lancaster would be looked at in a more positive light if he won more of the bigger games.

The above not a bit contradictory?

Lancaster made a number of poor decisions although I wouldn't include holding back George and Itoje. He did do a lot of good work, although was just short of the quality/experience/pedigree to take England to the next level.

Leaving Hartley out of the World Cup was a poor decision.

Burgess was an interesting one. A lot of people will say that he shouldn't have gone, but once he picked him I was baffled with how he used him. I would have started him against Fiji. The game wasn't in too much doubt, it's a chance to have a good look at him, and he might have provided a spark in that game (a huge hit or a big carry) that really lifted the confidence of the whole team. As it was, the mood after the Fiji game was a little dejected (although it had no right to be as we were the only side to take a TBP from them).

After the (successful) Fiji game, he then shuffled his midfield to bring Burgess in. Which was fine, because actually we were 25-18 up with Burgess on the pitch. Then he inexplicably subbed him off and we end up on the wrong side of history.

My questions about Burgess would be the inconsistent treatment. Pick him, trial him against Fiji and then return to Barritt if he's not at the right level, or don't pick him.

I guess the other issue was Joseph's injury - why did Lancaster not have a second choice 13 in the squad he was comfortable using? Again, the Wales game didn't go too badly with Burgess and Barritt in the centres together, but had we played a 12 and a 13 we might have been able to score more than the one try.

The 2014 tour to NZ is another example of his confused decision-making process.

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Lancaster ignored Itoje

Hardly. The World Cup would have been the earliest realistic chance to bring him into the squad, and he made the training squad.

I agree

Whilst Mark McCall has stated that RWC2015 was too early for Maro - and without the pre-season and early season games for Sarries in 2015 he would not have been ready when Eddie came knocking. Young players can improve so quickly that we can at times fall into the mistake of assuming if they were good in 2016 they would have been good in 2015.

Where is that stated? I know Mccall said he believed Itoje would open eyes at the time.

Saracens boss Mark McCall added: "At this club if we think you're ready we're going to put you in. It took Maro just three months to convince us. He's bright, he's physical, he makes things happen around him. He's almost perfect."


http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/saracens-starlet-maro-itoje-set-5725075


robbo can't compare players who have played many years in rugby union to someone parachuted in from another code.

Itoje and George had played more rugby union than Burgess. A lot more.

Both had won an AP final, Itoje had been in the Saxons.

Burgess was in his first season still getting used to rugby union.

Lancaster held back the wrong players and rushed Burgess.

I find it amusing people were happy to hold back Itoje and George but welcome Burgess with open arms.


Barritt shouldn't have been used at 13. Didn't seem fully fit either.


Leaving out Hartley backfired because Lancaster's lack of trust in George. Lancaster was left with the underpowered Youngs at hooker.

He of course used slade as well in that squad. Remember though players should only be debuted in games without risk according to some. Now whether you feel a WC is one of those no risk no pressure environments or whether you just make up these reasons at different times to justify players you yourself want to see then ignore these reasons at a later date may be open for debate.

beshocked wrote:Burgess was in his first season still getting used to rugby union.

I find it amusing people were happy to hold back Itoje

Itoje was called up to the World Cup training squad 1 year almost to the day after his premiership debut. I'm sure a lot of players wish they were held back like him.

On top of that, Itoje hadn't proven himself a specialist at Lock or Flank.

After seeing him against us in MK April 2015 I was saying he was ready but to act like it was a huge mistake to not be starting in the World Cup is ridiculous. Lancaster name checked him before you knew who he was.

Anyway on the whole jones doesn't or hasn't as yet needed to make a raft of changes as Lancaster did. With a few of these lads coming through he may be tempted. LCD Taylor genge underhill the still relatively new Hughes the curries Lozowski earle solomona. All look very promising. I suspect jones will only want to introduce a couple at a time based on his spell so far.

In hindsight holding back George and Itoje were poor decisions , but I dont think with the information at the time (including that it wasnt that long since Youngs had been the stand out Hooker in the NH) it was a huge failure. Tuillagi travelled to a wrold cup less than year after his permiership debut ( and hed missed a month through suspension)but did well...that Itoje was ridiculously inexperienced made him a risk and whilst I agree it may have seemed a sound decision at the time but may well have been a bertter one to take him.

The Burgess thing is the real stinker, but you can lay that at the door of Farrell senior and Lancaster allowing himself to be railroaded into a pet project that they seemed determined to see through regardless of what happned.
He got injured? Yeah we dont care its not like he needs any experience in Union. Playing as a forward for his club? Doesnt matter we need him at 12. Not performing? He will come good...we have staked too much on this. Taking a risk and shootingf or the moon is one thing but it was absurd to expect a player who had so little time on the pitch as a Union player, and even less as a back to magically come good in the world cup was somewhere between naive and desperate. If he had come over 2 years before and played as a flanker he might just have had time to build the all round game and knowledge required ...and be doing what he does best which is running round the pitch hurting people with or without the ball.

For Hartley ... Lancaster was  on a no win with that. He was bought in with a remit of retsoring discipline and pride because of the negative media coverage that he had helped to feed following the previous world cup. (Johnson of course had been pilliored by the same press for being too much of a discplinarian ofr the previous 3 years and decided he needed to relax the atmosphere for the world cup...but that didnt fit the narrative).
Hartley was already on a last chance, and had been given another last chance before his ban. Lancasters credibility would have been shot if he'd then selected him. Tuilagi too arguably was thrown to the wolves a bit but ultimately only had hismlef to blame for getting stinking drunk in the first place. Had those guys been in the squad the press would have been as nasty toward England as they were in NZ.
Again hindsight things couldnt have gone any worse so they maybe shouldve took them both anyway and just stuck 2 fingers up to naysayers. Theres no question that being short some of their best players hurt England.

Other mistakes...ditching Easter and singling him out as one of the problems with the old England, getting pushed into selecting Dawson, then 2 years later scurrying back tail between the legs to Easter. Arguably that was part of the bigger issue with wanting to clean out the old team and put his former pupils in. And managing the press to make himslef look sainmtly whilst trashing the previous regime.

Burgess did come good in the World Cup though. He performed well.

We were too blunt in that world cup. Turned our back on how we were playing and went with grinding down the opposition with a pack designed to be mobile and to link well with the backs.