England Squad for Autumn Series - My take on who's in and why?

First topic message reminder :

It gets picked tomorrow.

My squad for the autumn series:

Brown (still the best defensive FB by far).
Daly (Must be in first XV. With only 1 year out from the WC, just stick with him at wing or else bet the house and put him at 13).
Nowell (back up wing. Injury hasn't helped him).
May (1st choice now with Daly).
Ashton (with Watson out good to see how he performs, albeit short of match practice).
Cokanasiga (Very raw, but looks a better bet than Solomona/Roko/Yarde as a brick house wing that EJ needs in his armoury).

Tuilagi (looking fit, fingers crossed...EJ needs to get that witch doctor into camp).
Twelvetrees (in for Te'o who is just back from injury and needs time. Twelvetrees has been in impressive form dovetailing with Cips in 10/12 axis. Experienced, a goalkicker, strong in tackle and fleet of foot).
Slade (utility back with pace and left foot kicking option. Prefer to see him develop his game at 12 but looks like EJ sees him as a 13).
Farrell. (This is the year to show us that he deserves to be recognised as the best fly-half England has ever had; next to JW)

Ford. (urgently needs competition for his place)
Cipriani (is he the man to bring out the best in this England backline? Yes!).
Youngs. (needs to maintain consistency and get back to his sniping best)
Care. (Is he better than Robson?)
Robson (Care needs to feel some heat).

B. Vunipola. (Indispensable. Seems to have lost more weight)
Hughes (just back from injury but too good to ignore as back up 8. Simmonds is too small and better 7s are already in place).
T. Curry. (Lead contender for 7 jersey with a better game in the loose than Underhill)
Underhill (Curry and Underhill to fight it out for the 7 jersey and if neither prevail, then bring back Haskell).
Robshaw (under threat from Shields or Rhodes who are both more athletic and comparable in terms of work rate).
Shields (hope that cheekbone heals in time. In for his highly credible tackling and carrying stats in SR).
Rhodes (Flanker/Lock who can displace Kruis and give Robshaw a run for the 6 jersey).

Lawes. (always 1st choice)
Launchbury. (needs to show he is a better player than Itoje.)
Itoje. (a big season after losing steam)

Cole. (well rested. Should see him back to his scrummaging best)
Sinckler. (needs to grow a little wiser on the pitch)
Williams. (could displace Sinckler as bench option)
Marler. (superior to Vunipola in the scrum and should start matches)
Vunipola. (needs to get back to his rampaging best. Should draw inspiration from Codie Taylor's recent displays in the loose)
Hepburn (in for injured Genge).
Hartley. (once again, he needs to prove himself.)
George. (perfect bench option)
Cowan-Dickie. (just got injured so may have to sit it out, in which case Dunn is a good option)

What's with people wanting Manu at 12. He's a 13. A bloody good 13. Move him to 12 to smash it up is a waste of his abilities

Carl Fearns has come out and said he's our second best number 8 after Billy Vunipola. Would be a decent option to have were he plying his trade in England.

carpet baboon wrote:What's with people wanting Manu at 12. He's a 13. A bloody good 13. Move him to 12 to smash it up is a waste of his abilities

What they're aiming for is the same transformation the All Blacks did with Nonu. Teach him to distribute and you have a player who will force defences to commit to him and create space. I must admit that I have my doubts, mainly because Ben Kay explained that Manu was so powerful even as a schoolboy that he never really learned anything other than running over people. It's a big change in attitude to keep people guessing.

Harry Mallinder out for the rest of the season.

That is a great pity, he was starting to look comfortable at 15 and with that boot he was Saints best player for pinning the opposition back in their 22.

If he had carried on until the 6N he may just have been in with a shout at the England 15 shirt

Due to an interesting quirk in the disciplinary system, Lozowski will now miss the first autumn international.

This is because:
*You receive a ban in weeks
*Weeks are not counted towards your ban if they don't contain a meaningful fixture

Lozowski received a 2-week ban, which was going to rule him out of the Lyon game last weekend and the cup game against Leicester this weekend. Which makes sense.

However, Lozowski got called up to the England squad and would therefore be unavailable for the cup game. Therefore he misses no meaningful fixture in his second week. The second week is therefore deferred until the week ending 4th November - so he'll miss the South Africa game.

Saracens tried to get Lozowski released to not play in the Leicester game to burn off the last week of his ban, but the disciplinary committee ruled that in the normal course of events (i.e. had he not been banned) there would have been no meaningful fixture.

The truly weird thing about this situation is, although the Leicester game will not count towards his ban, he still would not be allowed to play that game. So in effect a 2 week ban becomes a 3 week ban. It's not the worst thing about the maddeningly inconsistent disciplinary process, but it is an odd quirk that can be very frustrating.

robbo277 wrote:Due to an interesting quirk in the disciplinary system, Lozowski will now miss the first autumn international.

This is because:
*You receive a ban in weeks
*Weeks are not counted towards your ban if they don't contain a meaningful fixture

Lozowski received a 2-week ban, which was going to rule him out of the Lyon game last weekend and the cup game against Leicester this weekend. Which makes sense.

However, Lozowski got called up to the England squad and would therefore be unavailable for the cup game. Therefore he misses no meaningful fixture in his second week. The second week is therefore deferred until the week ending 4th November - so he'll miss the South Africa game.

Saracens tried to get Lozowski released to not play in the Leicester game to burn off the last week of his ban, but the disciplinary committee ruled that in the normal course of events (i.e. had he not been banned) there would have been no meaningful fixture.

The truly weird thing about this situation is, although the Leicester game will not count towards his ban, he still would not be allowed to play that game. So in effect a 2 week ban becomes a 3 week ban. It's not the worst thing about the maddeningly inconsistent disciplinary process, but it is an odd quirk that can be very frustrating.

But one specifically changed because people moaned about the opposite happening, with bans across break periods being meaningless.

Gooseberry wrote:

robbo277 wrote:Due to an interesting quirk in the disciplinary system, Lozowski will now miss the first autumn international.

This is because:
*You receive a ban in weeks
*Weeks are not counted towards your ban if they don't contain a meaningful fixture

Lozowski received a 2-week ban, which was going to rule him out of the Lyon game last weekend and the cup game against Leicester this weekend. Which makes sense.

However, Lozowski got called up to the England squad and would therefore be unavailable for the cup game. Therefore he misses no meaningful fixture in his second week. The second week is therefore deferred until the week ending 4th November - so he'll miss the South Africa game.

Saracens tried to get Lozowski released to not play in the Leicester game to burn off the last week of his ban, but the disciplinary committee ruled that in the normal course of events (i.e. had he not been banned) there would have been no meaningful fixture.

The truly weird thing about this situation is, although the Leicester game will not count towards his ban, he still would not be allowed to play that game. So in effect a 2 week ban becomes a 3 week ban. It's not the worst thing about the maddeningly inconsistent disciplinary process, but it is an odd quirk that can be very frustrating.

But one specifically changed because people moaned about the opposite happening, with bans across break periods being meaningless.

I guess this diverts from Lozowski (because I doubt he'd play the cup game even if cleared) and more into a personal gripe when this happened to me...

But what's more important? Missing meaningful games or missing weeks?

I find it weird how a panel can say a game isn't meaningful, but at the same time say you can't play in these deemed meaningless games. If you're going to say a game doesn't apply to a ban, you should say the ban doesn't apply to that game in my opinion.

It seems silly to start with but wasn't it to combat an instance with sonny bill williams playing a friendly or lower style cup game from happening again?

Wasn't the issue with Sonny Bill that the NZ RU wanted to count an ABs trial game as counting towards a ban!
Arguing that it was a higher intensity or more meaningful than a super rugby or local game.
Not sure what the outcome was though.

Poorfour wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:What's with people wanting Manu at 12. He's a 13. A bloody good 13. Move him to 12 to smash it up is a waste of his abilities

What they're aiming for is the same transformation the All Blacks did with Nonu. Teach him to distribute and you have a player who will force defences to commit to him and create space. I must admit that I have my doubts, mainly because Ben Kay explained that Manu was so powerful even as a schoolboy that he never really learned anything other than running over people. It's a big change in attitude to keep people guessing.

George Ford and Geordan Murphy disagree with you.

https://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/latest-news/31101/murphys-law-can-make-manu-tuilagi-lethal-for-leicester-says-george-ford/

Space, one on ones and angles at soft shoulders these are the areas you want Manu running. Perfectly demonstrated Vs the Scarlets where he gave their international centres the run around.

Te'o is the ideal battering ram with a pass at 12. It's just not an area or way if playing that suits Manu. The only time I thought he could make a 12 was on the Lions tour sandwiched between Sexton and BOD. England don't have that kind of midfield to drop him into. I'd be interested to see a Ford, Te'o, Manu midfield but that may lack a little flair.

Not much flair and no Farrell who's not going to be dropped.

I'd personally move away from Ford and concentrate on Farrell/Cips whilst trying to find viable options in midfield.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Not much flair and no Farrell who's not going to be dropped.

I'd personally move away from Ford and concentrate on Farrell/Cips whilst trying to find viable options in midfield.

Based on the end of last season and the summer I'd be inclined to agree. However, Ford has been the form flyhalf in the AP so far this season, unflappable consistency and a nice mix to his play. He seems to be flourishing since Murphy has given him more options and freedom to play or not as he sees fit. If the rest of his team would follow his example Tigers would have less problems.

Ben Youngs form has unfortunately not recovered in the same way. That's a concern.

Yeah Lendrid should be nowhere near the England squad.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:What's with people wanting Manu at 12. He's a 13. A bloody good 13. Move him to 12 to smash it up is a waste of his abilities

What they're aiming for is the same transformation the All Blacks did with Nonu. Teach him to distribute and you have a player who will force defences to commit to him and create space. I must admit that I have my doubts, mainly because Ben Kay explained that Manu was so powerful even as a schoolboy that he never really learned anything other than running over people. It's a big change in attitude to keep people guessing.

George Ford and Geordan Murphy disagree with you.

https://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/latest-news/31101/murphys-law-can-make-manu-tuilagi-lethal-for-leicester-says-george-ford/

Space, one on ones and angles at soft shoulders these are the areas you want Manu running. Perfectly demonstrated Vs the Scarlets where he gave their international centres the run around.

Te'o is the ideal battering ram with a pass at 12. It's just not an area or way if playing that suits Manu. The only time I thought he could make a 12 was on the Lions tour sandwiched between Sexton and BOD. England don't have that kind of midfield to drop him into. I'd be interested to see a Ford, Te'o, Manu midfield but that may lack a little flair.

Will Eddie listen ? Manu is a frightening beast at 13. At 12 he's alright.
Ford faz Manu is a decent midfield. Although faz is better at 10 than 12. Why don't England have a proper 12?
There must be someone who can do it. ( Honestly I watch a bit of prem but not a lot and im genuinely interested in who you have who could play 12)

Also why isn't Don Armond in the squad

Williams is the form 12 but could do with a run of games with newcastle to be fair to him and give him the best chance.
Does it have to be a rigid system? Farrell slade Tuilagi could be quite interchangeable on attack and defence for instance

Is it too crazy to suggest the 2nd coming of 36?

I think so. The midfield seems pretty full now with plenty of players needin some game time and combos to develop.
I see england have now basically said no one is ruled out for next coach. Eddie Jones: RFU prepared to replace England boss with Premiership coach - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45963345
Baxter mccall or borthwick?

lostinwales wrote:Is it too crazy to suggest the 2nd coming of 36?

Not going to happen, especially as like Slade and Lozowski he is currently playing 13 for his club.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Not much flair and no Farrell who's not going to be dropped.

I'd personally move away from Ford and concentrate on Farrell/Cips whilst trying to find viable options in midfield.

Based on the end of last season and the summer I'd be inclined to agree. However, Ford has been the form flyhalf in the AP so far this season, unflappable consistency and a nice mix to his play. He seems to be flourishing since Murphy has given him more options and freedom to play or not as he sees fit. If the rest of his team would follow his example Tigers would have less problems.

Ben Youngs form has unfortunately not recovered in the same way. That's a concern.

I'm not seeing that much change in Ford tbh. He's a front foot flyhalf, I just don't think he's what England need right now. I think we should go with Farrell at 10 and stick with him.

I thought loz played well at 12 when Barrett was injured, the boy can tackle. Sticking Manu at 12 I'm not hugely convinced but I'm not saying it can't work. Manu is a better distributor than is given credit for but if you were to maximise his talents it's as Murphy stated on the shoulder running off someone in midfield. If anyone was to be able to play different positions it's Slade and loz for me. Interesting enough Eddie has the ability to completely change the dynamics of the backs during a match for the first time. If he does fast and light in the pack in an attempt to swarm the breakdown and hit further out then a bigger backline could reap rewards. If that's not working reversing the size of pack to ball Carry in tight with more rapier backs could also reap rewards and keep the oppo guessing.

I think an issue for England is the fact that our wingers - May, Watson, Nowell, Ashton, etc - aren't the biggest. Most other teams seem to have at least one winger who can take on the crash ball, a Stockdale, North, Naholo. Meaning we either need to pick a centre who can do this - Teo, Manu, Burrell, Barritt - or we end up with a lightweight back line that struggle to cross the gain line with anything other than quick clean ball. When our forwards have struggled (and we have been poor at the breakdwon and at best average at the scrum), we don't give the backs the ball they need and Ford, et al look poor.

However, we can quible about our best backline, but unless we can get a pack which can get more than parity, we will struggle. Forwards win matches, the backs just decide by how much. I don't see the likes of Ewels or Stooke scaring the All Blacks.

Agree, pack has been below par for most of last season.
3rd test against SA doesn't count as the series was done.

Cockanasinga may go some way to address that back line size issue (but he is un-tested at this level) and although there are guys currently out through injury - there are plenty of wing options when everyone is fit.

England must see an improvement this November in results - It shouldn't be, but because of last season these now become must win games for Eddie.
SA, Australia and Japan should all be wins - and a narrow loss to ABs is probably the expectation for most. (this is despite the injury list).

I agree cokanasiga te'o and Tuilagi bring that. I to be fair brown and nowell pack a punch.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It seems silly to start with but wasn't it to combat an instance with sonny bill williams playing a friendly or lower style cup game from happening again?

No. Sonny Bill was sent off playing the Lions and got a 4 week ban. This ban had the same conditions, i.e. only weeks with meaningful matches would count. The panel then decided, on appeal, that a fixture that was New Zealand vs Counties Manukau and Taranaki (40 minutes against each side) constituted a meaningful fixture and therefore should count towards his ban, making him available for a Rugby Championship encounter.

There are slight differences with the Lozowski case. While I would debate that this "game of two halves" that NZ won 106-7 constitutes a meaningful fixture (and World Rugby expressed 'surprise' over the ruling), I would not doubt that SBW would have been involved; as it was an All Blacks fixture and he was in the NZ squad at the time. Therefore if you give the game meaningful status, his ban is served.

For Lozowski on the other hand, the Premier Cup (or whatever it's called) would constitute a meaningful fixture per the definition of the term, but the panel (rightly) ruled out that he would not be involved under normal circumstances (as he was due to be on England duty) and any attempt to make him available for the fixture (which he would be banned for) would be contrived.

I think it's important to clarify "meaningful" here. There's no requirement for the game to be at an equivalent level or anything. So the fact that Lozowski received the ban in a European game and SBW received the ban in a Lions test aren't relevant. As a rule, if it's in an organised, sanctioned competition (e.g. league, cup) it will be meaningful. You then have to argue whether the player would have played in it had they not been banned.

On balance, I'd say the Lozowski ban is right under the current laws. I think the meaningful games caveat does have some issues though.

Agreed. Coming from being a footy fan as a kid it's always been a bit strange that bans from one comp slip over into another let alone into internationals. Happens very rarely in football.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I agree cokanasiga te'o and Tuilagi bring that. I to be fair brown and nowell pack a punch.

Earle offers a lot of power, too. But Brown and Nowell shouldn't be underestimated - neither is a crash ball runner in the classic sense, but they usually take two or three tacklers to bring them down, which is much the same thing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Agreed. Coming from being a footy fan as a kid it's always been a bit strange that bans from one comp slip over into another let alone into internationals.  Happens very rarely in football.

I would possibly favour this model. If you get a red card then it's a competition ban, with global bans for more serious offences. In football, these are pretty much limited to drugs bans, match fixing and the like. But in rugby you could potentially extend global bans to gouging, biting, etc - things that fall far outside what we would consider "regular" occurrences like tackle offences.

Ben Young's will be the starting 9, sometimes he's gone better for could try them club so let's hope that's the case. It's infuriating because for his whole career he's had the potential to be the best scrum half we could have by a long ways but he's just never been consistent enough.

Right how about getting your predictions down for the sa match. Name the 23 and if you want to add your reasoning then great.

1. Hepburn - who else is left?
2. Hartley
3. Williams
4. Lawes
5. Itoje
6. Shields - I want Wilson but I'm not in charge
7. Curry
8. Morgan
9. Youngs
10. Ford
11. May
12. Farrell
13. Tuilagi (Eddie loves a bolter)
14. Daly
15. Brown
16. Moon
17. George
18. Sinkler - still reckon Eddie sees him as a finisher
19. Kruise
20. Care
21. Rhodes - he won't resist player a south african against his own nation.
22. Slade
23. Mercer

Eddie will go for the usual game plan and I don't think we will chuck it about like the first two tests in sa. He will want control boring grinding rugby.

Pretty good stab at the expected team I'd say. Apparently lawes has just returned to the england fold after seeing a specialist for a back injury. Think he may start Kruis and itoje.

The Lozowski situation becomes yet more farcical.

He appealed against both his guilty verdict and the punishment received for dangerousdclearing out at a duck. At the appeal they found in his favour and, despite already missing a game, his ban was rescinded. However EPCR then decided to appeal against the not guilty finding he got last week for the second citing(dangerous tackle). This appeal will be heard next week, so effectively he will have served the original 2 week ban.

Makes you wonder why they didn't appeal the not guilty straight away then?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Pretty good stab at the expected team I'd say. Apparently lawes has just returned to the england fold after seeing a specialist for a back injury. Think he may start Kruis and itoje.

Lawes was back last week for the Scarlets game I think , like most of the Saints starting 15 he is rested this week, a virtual academy side is 30-5 up and half time. Some pressure being applied to the senior players???????

England v South Africa: Courtney Lawes doubtful with recurring back injury - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/46004082

More detail here. I'd read from borthwick he had come into the england camp today. Presumably ewers comes to the bench if lawes doesn't make it.

Is this more of EJs training methods? Lawes pulled out of the Tigers game with a back spasm, missed the next game against Clermont, but was back and firing against Dragons and was okay to join the squad.

No. Preexisting injury which was seen by a specialist.

And caused by a bed which was too small at a hotel. Makes a mockery that injuries are caused by too little rest. .....

. Hepburn - who else is left?
2. Hartley
3. Williams
4. Lawes
5. Itoje
6. Shields - I want Wilson but I'm not in charge
7. Curry
8. Morgan
9. Youngs
10. Ford
11. May
12. Farrell
13. Tuilagi (Eddie loves a bolter)
14. Daly
15. Brown
16. Moon
17. George
18. Sinkler - still reckon Eddie sees him as a finisher
19. Kruise
20. Care
21. Rhodes - he won't resist player a south african against his own nation.
22. Slade
23. Mercer???? does he cover No 8 and the wing

Remarkably similar to yoda then.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And caused by a bed which was too small at a hotel. Makes a mockery that injuries are caused by too little rest. .....

Nick Easter suffered a bed injury during the 2011 World Cup

Easter said it was a change of bed, from a hard surface to a soft one, that had triggered the problem.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/8779957/Rugby-World-Cup-2011-England-No8-Nick-Easter-has-an-epidural-in-attempt-to-save-his-tournament.html

Incidentally, if we are down to Itoje and Kruis because Lawes and Launchbury are out, then obviously Stooke and Ewels are the next two lock options (not including back row players who can cover the position). I don't know really know either. Are they really the next best locks in England?

Teams from Sunday Times pundits, including Stephen Jones usual muppitry:


Stephen Jones
15 A Goode
14 C Ashton
13 H Slade
12 M Tuilagi
11 J May
10 O Farrell
9 R Wrigglesworth
8 Z Mercer
7 D Armand
6 M Itoje
5 G Kruis
4 D Attwood
3 H Williams
2 D Hartley
1 A Hepburn

Stuart Barnes
15 M Brown
14 E Daly
13 H Slade
12 O Farrell
11 J May
10 G Ford
9 B Youngs
8 Z Mercer
7 T Curry
6 M Rhodes
5 C Lawes
4 M Itoje
3 N Schonert
2 J George
1 B Moon


Lawrence Dallaglio
15 M Brown
14 E Daly
13 H Slade
12 M Tuilagi
11 J May
10 O Farrell
9 B Youngs
8 B Morgan
7 T Curry
6 B Shields
5 G Kruis
4 M Itoje
3 H Williams
2 D Hartley
1 A Hepburn

I like ewel to be honest. For me I think slater though.

Jones editor should have thrown that I'm has face and told him that he's picked players not even in the squad. Proper idiot.

Stooke and Ewels are decent enough, but in all honesty only the 4th and 3rd best locks at Bath.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Jones editor should have thrown that I'm has face and told him that he's picked players not even in the squad. Proper idiot.

The only one that actually looks plausible is Dallaglio's - but what does he know?

Tuilagi will provide inpact from the bench.

Ewels has exceeded expectations in his England opportunities but I can't help thinking that Attwood or Slater would be better options.

I think Jones will keep it safe:

1.Hepburn 2.Hartley 3.Williams 4.Itoje 5.Kruis 6.Shields 7.T Curry 8.Morgan
9.Youngs 10.Ford 11.May 12.Farrell 13.Tuilagi 14.Daly 15.Brown

16.George 17.Moon 18.Sinckler 19.Ewels 20.Mercer 21.Care 22.Slade 23.Te'o

Does everybody think that Shields will be a shoe in?

lostinwales wrote:Does everybody think that Shields will be a shoe in?

My guess would be yes.

Wilson has been overlooked whilst in strong form many times before.

Itoje out of position or Rhodes on the flank is another option - I'd prefer Shields even in poor form.

Mercer at 6 seems unlikely given the injuries in the back row.

If Jones wanted to really target the breakdown given it's been such a weakness then Underhill and Curry on either flank is an option. That seems unlikely again with the injuries though.