England's Elite Performance Squad - 2017/18

I missed the Chiefs game on the weekend - did Slade have a good one?
Seems like he is starting to focus on 13 - I do wonder if that is a directive from RFU.
12 is quite well stocked with Teo and hybrid 12's in Farrell, Lozowski.
After Saints demolition - Is Piers Francis still in the mix for some people?
Joseph I am sure will come back into the mix.

Piers Francis hasn't been starting regularly enough I wouldn't think.

yappysnap wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I don't think he's average, more an average Int. To get to the next level I think we need better on the flanks than Robshaw and Haskell. Who? I don't know.....it's up to EJ to develop I guess.

So he's not as good as some mysterious 'other' player. I see.

I don't get it.

He's not as good as Warburton, Moriarty, SOB, POM, Watson, Tips, Cane, Savea, Kaino, Hooper, Pocock.....etc etc. Is what I'm suggesting, we need better.

propdavid_london wrote:Sorry GF - just seen you posted similar

Good minds
Means Jones will go totally different

propdavid_london wrote:I missed the Chiefs game on the weekend - did Slade have a good one?
Seems like he is starting to focus on 13 - I do wonder if that is a directive from RFU.
12 is quite well stocked with Teo and hybrid 12's in Farrell, Lozowski.
After Saints demolition - Is Piers Francis still in the mix for some people?
Joseph I am sure will come back into the mix.

I think 12 is the area of concern. We have Farrell, and T'eo

13 we have:
Joseph, Slade (Playing quality stuff) , Marchant and even Daly is an option. 4 Cracking players.

Is the Lozowski to Exeter rumour still going strong?

12: Burrell

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

yappysnap wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I don't think he's average, more an average Int. To get to the next level I think we need better on the flanks than Robshaw and Haskell. Who? I don't know.....it's up to EJ to develop I guess.

So he's not as good as some mysterious 'other' player. I see.

I don't get it.

He's not as good as Warburton, Moriarty, SOB, POM, Watson, Tips, Cane, Savea, Kaino, Hooper, Pocock.....etc etc. Is what I'm suggesting, we need better.

He is probably more of an all rounder than a lot of those mentioned...I know what you mean in wanting a bit of X-factor. But the balance has to be right - a guy like Billy V brings the X-factor, a destructive tackler or turn-over machine brings the X.
There are a number of players in or around the EPS that bring the 'X' for England in the pack - George, Mako V, Genge, Sinkler, Lawes, Itoje, Billy V, - possibly a Curry or Underhill or Clifford - but they still need the grounding of other that get through mountains of work as well - guys like, Cole, Marler, Hartley, Launchbury, Kruis, Robshaw. Hughes is half und half

How can you complain that Robshaw lacks anything that makes him stand out then say Moriarty is better? All Moriarty does is tackle. Robshaw is so much more of a well rounded player.

Just reading through this now and you've got there before me scott...moriarty bether than Robshaw? ! He has what underhill currently has a massive defensive game. I'm just hoping jones sees spending in him ad he has smith and it becomes obvious quickly. Nice to see a saracens player gets another 5 min and ready for England beshocked!

Scottrf I agree. Moriarty is a bit overrated.

Robshaw isn't the most impressive ball carrier but that's why you pick a pack for balance.

Robshaw is one of your grafters and every team can benefit from a grafter but you need enough big ball carriers too.

I think Robshaw should stay in the short term but if a star emerges who does everything he does and more? Well....

propdavid london I think you'll be surprised how much work those "flashy" guys put in.

I think someone like Itoje or Lawes adds more than Launchbury because they do the graft as well as the more fancy stuff. Same with George vs Hartley.

If you can do the set piece stuff as good/ better than your rivals as well as add more round the pitch.... you should get the nod.

Of course Itoje still gives away too many penalties and doesn't make every tackle but for a 2nd row he's very much at ease distributing the ball and that helps shift the point of attack and opens gaps in the defence.


How often have you seen forwards take the ball into contact when shipping the ball might have stretched the defence to breaking point?


Combining backs and forwards is obviously what the Nzers do and it's something England should keep aspiring to.

Obviously getting over the gain line and winning the collisions are important too.

I think Moriarty is a better player than Robshaw personally.

Robshaw is ok at most things, just not particularly great at anything. It's just an opinion, others will obviously disagree.

Robshaw is ok at most things, just not particularly great at anything. It's just an opinion, others will obviously disagree

Good point about opinions, mine differs 3200 mils from yours, Robshaw is the cement that keeps the pack legitimate, that allows the fancy-dan stuff from the other fatties.

There's many a game I watch then think 'how the pheck did he get there to do that'?

He must have Romulan stealth technology somewhere on his kit - or his dad was a Chameleon...

Do you pick a strong team for Asutralia and Argentina...then a real fringe side for Samoa?

Or do you play the same strong team for all 3 games.

It is a good question. Personally I'd pick a spine of a team for all three games and swap out experience/ youth as and when it was appropriate. (assuming Lions players are rested):

02. Hartley
03. Cole
04. Launchbury
06. Robshaw
09. Youngs
10. Ford
11. May
15. Brown

Something like that.

Has to be a strong squad with fringe in there but not the majority. You learn more with a mix. Points for star trek on a rugby forum as well.

This may be controversial...but im not sure id go with Brown at FB this AI.

I'd look at Watson.

Geordiefalcon hardly controversial when Brown has reluctance to pass the ball to his team mates.

I'd say his passing is worse than most of the forwards in the England squad let alone the backs!

Cumbrian why though? At least 3 of those players are under a lot of pressure for their spots.

Cumbrian wrote:It is a good question.  Personally I'd pick a spine of a team for all three games and swap out experience/ youth as and when it was appropriate. (assuming Lions players are rested):

02. Hartley
03. Cole
04. Launchbury
06. Robshaw
09. Youngs
10. Ford
11. May
15. Brown

Something like that.

Eddie has described the Argentina game as the most important Match England play this season - which would indicate he will look to play a strong side.

However I would be looking to rest the guys who appeared in the Tests in NZ, and also insist that the clubs rest them also - even send them on holiday for a fortnight maybe. Thus I would leave out Mako, George, Itoje, Lawes, Farrell, Watson & Daly.

I would supplement your spine with Marler and Hughes (and probably JJ). Like others I would want to see someone new at FB, but if I am resting Daly and Watson it makes it harder.

Thus, and with Nowell and Te'o injured, my teams would look something like:

Argentina - Marler, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Isiekwe, Robshaw, Underhill, Hughes, Youngs, Ford, May, Slade, JJ, Yarde, Brown
Australia - Genge, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Isiekwe, Robshaw, Underhill, Hughes, Youngs, Ford, May, Lozowski, Slade, Yarde, Brown
Samoa - Genge, Hartley, Williams, Ewells, Isiekwe, Underhill, Simmonds, Hughes, Care, Ford, May, Slade, JJ, Yarde, Lozowski

Wonder why argentina and not Australia? Trying to get them to start fast?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Wonder why argentina and not Australia? Trying to get them to start fast?

My assumption was because we play Argentina in RWC19, but who knows with Eddie - either what he means, or if he is being truthful.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I think Moriarty is a better player than Robshaw personally.

Robshaw is ok at most things, just not particularly great at anything. It's just an opinion, others will obviously disagree.

You are Warren Gatland and I claim my £5.

The Lions would have won 3-0 if I was Head Coach......

LT

I'd like to see Curry get a start at 7 in one game.

Ben Te'o looks out of contention for the autumn Tests. he needs at least a month of, and maybe even surgery.

I heard a few pundits saying that he is the linebeaker England need to pair with Ford/Farrell (or some similar playmaker combo). The fact Jones was interested in including Tuilagi suggests he might want to look at that alternative to the Joseph/Slade option at some point. Assuming Burrell and Barrett aren't under consideration, I wonder who else might fit the bill.

Rugby Fan wrote:Ben Te'o looks out of contention for the autumn Tests. he needs at least a month of, and maybe even surgery.

I heard a few pundits saying that he is the linebeaker England need to pair with Ford/Farrell (or some similar playmaker combo). The fact Jones was interested in including Tuilagi suggests he might want to look at that alternative to the Joseph/Slade option at some point. Assuming Burrell and Barrett aren't under consideration, I wonder who else might fit the bill.

I think that's the point, we don't have any huge centres.

The only ones i can think of are the Sale lads, who probably aren't "typical" crash ballers either.

Sam James - About 6'4 sand 15st
Will Addison - about 6'3 and roughly just under 16st

However I rate them both highly.

I think those Addison stats are a bit off GG

Do you not think he's that big Sarge?

Ah your right on the Sale website he's listed at 1.78m and under 15st.

LondonTiger wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:It is a good question.  Personally I'd pick a spine of a team for all three games and swap out experience/ youth as and when it was appropriate. (assuming Lions players are rested):

02. Hartley
03. Cole
04. Launchbury
06. Robshaw
09. Youngs
10. Ford
11. May
15. Brown

Something like that.

Eddie has described the Argentina game as the most important Match England play this season - which would indicate he will look to play a strong side.

However I would be looking to rest the guys who appeared in the Tests in NZ, and also insist that the clubs rest them also - even send them on holiday for a fortnight maybe. Thus I would leave out Mako, George, Itoje, Lawes, Farrell, Watson & Daly.

I would supplement your spine with Marler and Hughes (and probably JJ). Like others I would want to see someone new at FB, but if I am resting Daly and Watson it makes it harder.

Thus, and with Nowell and Te'o injured, my teams would look something like:

Argentina - Marler, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Isiekwe, Robshaw, Underhill, Hughes, Youngs, Ford, May, Slade, JJ, Yarde, Brown
Australia - Genge, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Isiekwe, Robshaw, Underhill, Hughes, Youngs, Ford, May, Lozowski, Slade, Yarde, Brown
Samoa - Genge, Hartley, Williams, Ewells, Isiekwe, Underhill, Simmonds, Hughes, Care, Ford, May, Slade, JJ, Yarde, Lozowski

I too assume that Eddie is attaching such importance to the Argentina game because of the World Cup group connotations. I must say though (and I may get slated for this) that I think they are somewhat of an overrated side. We beat them fairly easily during the last AI's despite being down to 14 men for practically the whole game and largely scratch squad went down there and beat them 2-0. At home, I think we could experiment against them a bit and still reasonably expect to put them away.

I like your squads and they are largely what I would pick myself, I would perhaps swap Marler and Genge around for the Argentina/Australia games. Defending on the centre partnership that Aus pick I might look at picking a more powerful centre. A midfield of Ford, Lozowski and Slade seems a bit of a small combination.

Cumbrian wrote:I too assume that Eddie is attaching such importance to the Argentina game because of the World Cup group connotations.  I must say though (and I may get slated for this) that I think they are somewhat of an overrated side.  We beat them fairly easily during the last AI's despite being down to 14 men for practically the whole game and largely scratch squad went down there and beat them 2-0.  At home, I think we could experiment against them a bit and still reasonably expect to put them away.  

I agree to an extent, but they were at the end of an incredibly brutal schedule then and completely knackered. I don't know if that's the case this time.

Given the number of injuries and squad changes hes not really got many options in terms of resting or trying out more players, without going to 3rd/4th choices which is somewhat pointless.

Argentina are back to being pretty weak at the moment. We know the sanzars are all struggling a bit at the moment (all blacks depleted by injury) and below their historic norms, but they have all been comfortably beating argentina. They arent as strong opposition as Aus will be, so I can only thing the "importance" placed on the fixture is because of world cup groups or a desire to keep momentum.
Either way it would be a big shock for them to lose, even with a lot of players missing

Gooseberry wrote:Given the number of injuries and squad changes hes not really got many options in terms of resting or trying out more players, without going to 3rd/4th choices which is somewhat pointless.

Argentina are back to being pretty weak at the moment. We know the sanzars are all struggling a bit at the moment (all blacks depleted by injury) and below their historic norms, but they have all been comfortably beating argentina. They arent as strong opposition as Aus will be, so I can only thing the "importance" placed on the fixture is because of world cup groups or a desire to keep momentum.
Either way it would be a big shock for them to lose, even with a lot of players missing

Not sure I agree with that too be honest. I think theres depth in a fair number of positions..and other positions where theres real talent that is itching to be tried out.

I'm inclined to agree with GF, though for slightly different reasons. I'm not that bothered by talent being itching to be tried out, but come 2019 we will almost certainly have to rely on 3rd and 4th choices in a couple of positions because of injuries.

At the moment we have well-established 1st and 2nd choices in most positions, and then a big gap to the 3rd choice and beyond. There's a big gap from Marler and Mako to Genge, for instance, or Ford and Farrell to Lozowski, Francis or Smith.

We also have a couple of positions where we don't have an established 2nd or even 1st choice - 7 definitely, and 6 if you don't believe the "lock as blindside" argument (I don't).

There are still 20+ tests before the RWC, but most players need around 10 caps to be fully effective internationals, and the 3rd choices won't get the chance to play in every game, so England need to start looking for opportunities to give them experience. These AIs look like a good bet.

Poorfour wrote:...There are still 20+ tests before the RWC, but most players need around 10 caps to be fully effective internationals...

The 1014 Rugby guys noted the number of caps for Cup winning sides has been increasing. There are problems with the data we have, because the game has changed so much over a small sample size. Still, they concluded that you need more than a four year World Cup cycle to build a cup winning team because the average caps per player you need is probably more than you can get in four years.

We often say that Jones has been building on a base established by Lancaster, so on the face of it, we have the trajectory for a healthy number of caps. Perhaps, though, it's not going to be all that high after all.

Itoje, for instance currently only has 12 caps and George Kruis only 21. There's always lot of talk about Haskell (75 caps) and Brown (62 caps) being yesterday's men. That's 137 caps we'll be down if less experienced players replace them.

Of the top of my head (plus google), our other most capped current players are

Hartley - 86
Cole - 77
Care - 73
Ben Youngs - 72
Lawes - 60
Farrell - 56
Robshaw - 56
Marler - 51
Tom Wood - 50 (not sure if "current" applies)
------------------------
Mako Vunipola - 48
Launchbury - 44
Ford - 37
Billy Vunipola - 34
Jonathan Joseph - 33
Watson - 29
May -27
Nowell -25
George - 20 (N.B Tom Youngs has 28 England caps)

Interesting observation... and I would broadly agree.

The trouble is with a small dataset like that is that it's vulnerable to an exception. And the 2015 ABs are exactly that. A better analysis would actually be to look at the losing finalists as well, and see what the difference in experience is. I'd be willing to bet that the losers provide a more consistent trendline than the winners, but that the gap is consistent until 2015.
The point being that what you need is not enough experience to beat the previous winners, but enough experience to beat the next best team in the world. Even the 2019 ABs will not have as much experience as the 2015 ABs - it's very possible that no-one ever will.

The trendline is actually a much better fit if you exclude them, (R-squared of 0.87 vs 0.70) and it predicts that for 2019 you might need about 776 caps or 51.75 per player in the starting XV. That feels like a reasonable target.

So let's project forward. Let's make two assumptions:
1. On average each player in the final squad will pick up 15 caps between now and the RWC (allowing for injuries and spreading the experience around)
2. Barring injury or loss of form, Eddie isn't going to just drop experienced players, regardless of the press speculation. I think Haskell will go - he's been billed as a stop gap since Day 1 - but Hartley is likely to be kept and Brown will probably stay as long as he can maintain fitness (which is getting harder for him).

So, let's assume a starting XV under those rules:

Marler (Mako is preferred as a finisher) 66
Hartley 101
Cole 92
Kruis 36
Itoje 27
Robshaw 71
Underhill 18
Billy 49

Youngs 87
Ford 52
May 42
Farrell 71
Joseph 48
Nowell 40
Brown 77

Total: 877; Average: 58.5

On that basis, England could probably afford to lose two 50+ cap players and still have the right amount of experience - important given what 1014 said about the importance of bolters.

Perm 2 of Watson replacing Brown, George replacing Hartley, a Curry replacing Robshaw or Smith replacing Ford and England would still have the requisite experience.

Rugby fan true but look at Itoje's experience in only 12 caps at the young age of 22 -

2 European Champions Cup, 1 GS, 1 6 nations title, 2 AP titles, 1 draw Lions test as a starter, captaining LV and U20s winning teams. Also a victorious tour of Australia under his belt.

Being in a winning team and contributing to a winning team builds positive experiences and makes it easier to slot players in.

It's much easier to bring more inexperienced players into a winning team than a losing one IMO.



You also have to factor in player's ages and prime.

Mike Brown will be 34 and Hartley will be 33 by Japan RWC.

IMO it's easier for forwards to have more longevity than backs.


England do need to consider playing other hookers than just Hartley and George or England will have to go back to T.Youngs in Japan.....


Poorfour you can get away with someone like Lawes or Itoje at 6 depending on the opposition.


With Kyle Sinckler missing the AIs, what do England do at TH? TH is a problem.


It's not just experience - it's about attitude of players. Some players have worse discipline.

Sinckler and Genge are both talented but hot heads.

In contrast other players act much more mature than their age would suggest.

Caps of winning teams is non random sampling though.

If every team that enters the competition has 900 caps in their starting team you could surmise that you need a 900 cap team to win. Equally you could say 900 isn't enough to get you out of the group stages.

Better players get picked more, the advantage might not be experience related. In which case improving the side by bringing in a better debutante might not be detrimental at all.

If you look at the Sarries game at the weekend, it's notable how vocal Isiekwe was. If someone is reading situations better, has better workrate and communication then it's irrelevant to me that another player has XX caps.

Experience is important to an extent, so is being integrated into the set-up. But I think worrying that you have to replace a 50 cap player with another if they are no longer performing is silly.

Scottrf true. Isiekwe also looks comfortable, he's assured.

England are in a good position too - coming into this current England should be easier for more inexperienced players.

England went to Argentina with an inexperienced team and won.

I agree, integration into the set up is important.

Yes but I guess that's the question isn't it? Are certain players performing as well as others?

Certain players can also be improved by the right coaching - Lawes under Jones seems to be a superior player to the one with Lancaster in charge.

It is easier to come into a settled experienced winning side. Another reason not to make wholesale changes and make it harderfor those new players.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It is easier to come into a settled experienced winning side. Another reason not to make wholesale changes and make it harderfor those new players.

England are a settled experienced winning side so there's more room to make more changes.


France away in the first game of the 6 nations with a weaker squad than you have now is not the same as a home game with a very confident strong England squad vs a Argentina side lacking in confidence.

England beat Argentina with 14 men last season! Road Runner had a very good game and a nice workout.

Daly's inexperience was on display but didn't cost England because they were playing at home, were much stronger etc.

Precisely and you make wholesale changes you no longer have a strong e pwrienced winning side. Why do you call may road runner?

Is it not obvious? May loves to run very fast.

Yes you do unless you get too ridiculous. Getting the right balance is important.


You do not need to lurch from one extreme to the other - being incredibly reckless or really conservative.

Can pick a team which has some experience but isn't stale.

And when you start to ake 5 6 7 changes you start to have a completely different team without those combos and experience of winning; see?

No 7&1/2 wrote:And when you start to ake 5 6 7 changes you start to have a completely different team without those combos and experience of winning; see?

Depends what changes you make.

I am sure if you wanted to pick a disjointed team you could but equally you can make changes and still put a coherent team together.

Unfortunately I feel with you, you want to be reckless when caution would be recommended and overly conservative when there is the opportunity to be a bit more bold.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Poorfour wrote:...There are still 20+ tests before the RWC, but most players need around 10 caps to be fully effective internationals...

The 1014 Rugby guys noted the number of caps for Cup winning sides has been increasing. There are problems with the data we have, because the game has changed so much over a small sample size. Still, they concluded that you need more than a four year World Cup cycle to build a cup winning team because the average caps per player you need is probably more than you can get in four years.

We often say that Jones has been building on a base established by Lancaster, so on the face of it, we have the trajectory for a healthy number of caps.  Perhaps, though, it's not going to be all that high after all.

Itoje, for instance currently only has 12 caps and George Kruis only 21. There's always lot of talk about Haskell (75 caps) and Brown (62 caps) being yesterday's men. That's 137 caps we'll be down if less experienced players replace them.

Of the top of my head (plus google), our other most capped current players are

Hartley - 86
Cole - 77
Care - 73
Ben Youngs - 72
Lawes - 60
Farrell - 56
Robshaw - 56
Marler - 51
Tom Wood - 50 (not sure if "current" applies)
------------------------
Mako Vunipola - 48
Launchbury - 44
Ford - 37
Billy Vunipola - 34
Jonathan Joseph - 33
Watson - 29
May -27
Nowell -25
George - 20 (N.B Tom Youngs has 28 England caps)

It's interesting analysis. However, there's important context missing - Firstly, how experienced were the other teams? Is it a case that more caps is better, or is there a sweet spot? Secondly, how many caps are each of the leading teams likely to have by 2019? Will any country hit the 50 cap average mark?

Whatever beshocked.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:It's interesting analysis. However, there's important context missing - Firstly, how experienced were the other teams? Is it a case that more caps is better, or is there a sweet spot? Secondly, how many caps are each of the leading teams likely to have by 2019? Will any country hit the 50 cap average mark?

Pourfour made the same point about the other teams in a post above. I think you are both right, and it would pay dividends to look at thiose numbers too.

We've only had eight winners, so far. Two of those tournaments barred South Africa, and three of them took place while the game was amateur, and also included just 16 teams. When the 1999 cup increased to 20 sides, we ended up with five pools of four before subsequent tournaments settled on a format of four pools with five teams. There's probably too much variation to draw any firm rules.

For instance, no side has lost a pool game and gone on to win the World Cup. However, both England (2007) and France (2011) came close enough, that it's doesn't seem such an unlikely event. Similarly, it'll only take one relatively inexperienced, but talented, side to overturn the trend for heavily capped teams to win. Alan Hansen felt confident saying "You can't win anything with kids" in 1995 before United went on to win the title.

beshocked wrote:Scottrf true. Isiekwe also looks comfortable, he's assured.

England are in a good position too - coming into this current England should be easier for more inexperienced players.

England went to Argentina with an inexperienced team and won.

I agree, integration into the set up is important.

Yes but I guess that's the question isn't it? Are certain players performing as well as others?

Certain players can also be improved by the right coaching - Lawes under Jones seems to be a superior player to the one with Lancaster in charge.

To be fair to Lawes he did look very good at times but got injured a lot which disrupted his progress. He's older and wiser now, and has managed to stay off the treatment table for a while.

Re: the experience of other teams - I've actually posted on the 1014 FB page to ask if they could analyse the experience of the losing finalist for comparison - if experience matters, it's interesting to see whether the winners were always more experienced or whether there was just a level above which all the finalists were.

They seem to think it's a good idea, so maybe they will come back with something.

If you had the time and inclination, you could probably work out the squad experience of every team in every world cup, compensating for the level of experience gained through the tournament (7 games * 22/23 players = 150+ caps). But I'm not that patient, so I'll settle for having a view of the 2 teams at the pointy end.

Experience counts for a lot more than people acknowledge for me. I'd much rather have a squad of 30 experienced players than pick from 200 great athletes to make a team.