England RWC Thread

[maestegmafia]

First topic message reminder :

Next match pre RWC is England vs Italy 6th September.

22/09/2019 England v Tonga 11:15 GMT
26/09/2019 England v USA 11:45 GMT
05/10/2019 England v Argentina 09:00 GMT
12/10/2019 England v France 09:15 GMT

England Squad:

Forwards: Dan Cole (Leicester, 86 caps), Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter, 12), Tom Curry (Sale, 11), Ellis Genge (Leicester, 10), Jamie George (Saracens, 37), Maro Itoje (Saracens, 27), George Kruis (Saracens, 32), Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 59), Courtney Lawes (Northampton, 72), Lewis Ludlam (Northampton, 1), Joe Marler (Harlequins, 58), Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins, 22), Jack Singleton (Saracens, 1), Sam Underhill (Bath, 9), Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 42), Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 53), Mark Wilson (Newcastle/Sale, 13).

Backs: Joe Cokanasiga (Bath, 5), Elliot Daly (Saracens, 31), Owen Farrell (Saracens, 70), George Ford (Leicester Tigers, 56), Piers Francis (Northampton, 5), Willi Heinz (Gloucester, 1), Jonathan Joseph (Bath, 41), Jonny May (Leicester, 45), Ruaridh McConnochie (Bath, uncapped), Jack Nowell (Exeter, 33), Henry Slade (Exeter, 22), Manu Tuilagi (Leicester, 33), Anthony Watson (Bath, 34), Ben Youngs (Leicester, 86).

[No 7&1/2]

I've never seen it struggle to that extent. Perhaps I was focusing on it more with half an eye on what's to come? It's got to be a worry for them. As for Aus they looked great playing at pace and youd imagine that whoever are the flankers are going to have to be on top of their game I'm slowing them. Can very much see the case for lawes stattig with itoje for that one to help out and pressure their decision making.

[Guest]

Yes, Australia pushed Wales at the scrums last year. Once Dillon Lewis and Nicky Smith were on, it was always damage limitation. Thought Wales did well with the old channel one hook of the hooker blasting it back to the number 8. Only got caught twice with Navidi being too slow. The issues on nothing having a specialist 8. You're right the Welsh scrum isn't great, and isn't much better with Samson and Rob. Can see an argument for taking Rob, but not Samson, way too immobile and would have been like playing with 14 for the last 20 minutes today.

How much would England fear a more focused Australia in the QFs? Looking tasty, and their big Fijians will counter Manu and Billy. Could be another cracker.

[No 7&1/2]

I see francis escaped a ban. Probably about right? Got this from the RFU twitter feed:

Francis was cited for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.13 (dangerous high tackle) in England’s Rugby World Cup 2019 match against USA on 26 September.

The independent Judicial Committee was chaired by Nigel Hampton QC (New Zealand), joined by former international coach Frank Hadden (Scotland) and former international player John Langford (Australia).

Francis admitted he had committed an act of foul play but denied that it reached the red card threshold. 

The Committee judgement said: “Having considered all the angles of the incident, together with evidence from the player and submissions from his legal counsel, the panel determined that the act ought to have resulted in a yellow card on-field. 

“Since the threshold for upholding a citing is ‘red card’, the Committee did not uphold the citing and the player is free to play again immediately.”

The Committee followed the High Tackle Sanction Framework (HTSF) in order to make its decision. 

Francis accepted that it was a high tackle that made contact with the head of the opposition ball carrier and that a high degree of danger was present.

However, the Committee also considered there were mitigating factors including:

A sudden change in height by the USA player

Francis had made an attempt to avoid the opponent’s head by making a definite attempt to change his own height and body position

The initial contact was from Francis’ head on the ball carrier’s left shoulder, with the left shoulder then slipping up to make indirect and minor contact to the ball carrier’s head, causing no apparent injury

The judgement said: “The Committee weighed up the factors for and against mitigation and on the balance of probabilities, decided that the mitigating factors outweighed the factors against mitigation and so the appropriate on-field sanction was a yellow card.  

“The citing was therefore not upheld.”

[Guest]

Is it out of the question for England to lose the France game 'deliberately'?

Beat Argentina to knock them out of the group and guarantee qualification, then lose to France to avoid Australia and NZ?

[No 7&1/2]

I hope not. I'd want to see any team doing that thrown out of the comp.

[LondonTiger]

Is it out of the question for England to lose the France game 'deliberately'?

 Yes.

[Guest]

Typical Anglo-Saxon/Northern European ideas of 'fairness'.

Belgium had the same ideas in the football world cup - look what good it did for them.

A bit of old fashioned Antipodean gamesmanship might not go a miss for England...

[No 7&1/2]

2012 badminton. Knew I remembered an example from somewhere. Dont think it matters 1 way or another to be fair either.

[robbo277]

Belgium did as well in the football world cup as England, who came second in that group, with a semi-final exit.

Had they lost to England you could suggest they would have beat Croatia to make to the final, but then they would have still have to play France who knocked them out.

England could deliberately lose to France, and then have Wales, South Africa and then New Zealand if they made it. And if they did get to the final (not guaranteed) they'd have to play the NZ team they've effectively run scared from. How do you get the team up for that? How do you get the team believing?

If you're here to win then a QF exit or a runners up medal isn't the chasm it may seem at first.

[Guest]

A fair point robbo. But, equally, if they have a 'week off' for the France game, they could have Wales, Ireland, Australia, as opposed to Australia, NZ, Boks/Wales on the back of playing those tough two group games as well and going all out to beat France. Effectively, 3 tough games instead of 5 tough games with two really tough games before the final, at least. I don't expect Egland to beat NZ if htey top their group and ply them in the semis, particularly as NZ have coasted their group and are likely to face Scotland or Japan in the QFs. I think they'd stand a better chance of beating them in the final - after NZ have had, presumably, a tough SF, and England have maybe had a chance to recover a bit from the group games. Who knows. Interesting question though. Are we that far away from sport being all about the bottom line that these discussions will be irrelevant forever? I don't think so.

[Poorfour]

England have the toughest schedule of anyone apart from Scotland - who now face a motivated Japan with only 4 days to prepare.

I initially thought that if England finished the Argentina game having effectively qualified we might see a major change of personnel for France, but I now think that’s too blunt a way to think about it.

I think Eddie has been thinking about how to manage the schedule for the last 2 years, and is tackling it in two ways:

1) he’s established that he has a squad where he can rotate players pretty comfortably. With the possible exception of tighthead and No 8, England have at least two very high quality options in each position (albeit sometimes with very contrasting styles). 

2) He’s also clearly monitoring players on an individual basis and managing their game time based on that. If he pulls it off, he can keep them fresh throughout the tournament.

Based on the first couple of rounds, the likely knockout draws are:
- Win the pool: Australia / NZ or Ireland / 
- Runner up: Wales / Boks or Japan / 

Neither is an easy route, but I think the weekend’s results reduce the difference between them. If Wales and Japan top their pools, I think I’d rather face Australia than Wales in the QF, and Ireland are likely to challenge the ABs more than Scotland would have done.

[BamBam]

Bit in this article saying the whole squad is now fit and available for selection, naming Mako and Nowell too. Good news!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49876757

[king_carlos]

Bit in this article saying the whole squad is now fit and available for selection, naming Mako and Nowell too. Good news!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49876757

Both would be huge bonuses. Nowell offers a terrific bench option,.

1.Marler 2.George 3.Sinckler 4.Itoje 5.Lawes 6.Curry 7.Underhill 8.Vunipola
9.Youngs 10.Farrell 11.May 12.Tuilagi 13.Joseph 14.Watson 15.Daly

16.Cowan-Dickie 17.Vunipola 18.Cole 19.Kruis 20.Wilson 21.Heinz 22.Ford 23.Nowell

That would be a terrific side to field against Argentina. Joseph has looked really good, I'd probably stick with him at 13.

[Soul Requiem]

I tend to think if you're playing Tuilagi and Joseph you need Ford at 10 to get the most out of them, Manu has looked devastating at 13 too far less so at 12.

[robbo277]

A fair point robbo. But, equally, if they have a 'week off' for the France game, they could have Wales, Ireland, Australia, as opposed to Australia, NZ, Boks/Wales on the back of playing those tough two group games as well and going all out to beat France. Effectively, 3 tough games instead of 5 tough games with two really tough games before the final, at least. I don't expect Egland to beat NZ if htey top their group and ply them in the semis, particularly as NZ have coasted their group and are likely to face Scotland or Japan in the QFs. I think they'd stand a better chance of beating them in the final - after NZ have had, presumably, a tough SF, and England have maybe had a chance to recover a bit from the group games. Who knows. Interesting question though. Are we that far away from sport being all about the bottom line that these discussions will be irrelevant forever? I don't think so.

It's dangerous trying to predict the knock-outs too much. I think we'll get quarter finals of NZ vs Ireland and SA vs Japan. I'd rather have Australia in the quarters (over Wales), and then "desired" SF opponents in order would be Japan, Ireland, SA, NZ, so it's much of a muchness. I really hope they're not even talking about New Zealand in camp. There's no reason to.

If we win against Argentina, the pressure comes right off against France. I suspect players will be assessed on an individual basis and we may see players rested, but he won't play a B team and he would let the players playing know that he expects nothing less than a win, because he doesn't do things any other way.

I think our best hope of winning the competition is building the performance and belief week-on-week. England don't have the best record of bouncing back from losses. Looking at all our recent losses:

World Cup 2015 - lose to Wales, lose to Australia next week
Six Nations 2017 - lost to Ireland, got a few months off and then beat Argentina - but we didn't have our Lions and Argentina weren't at full strength
2018 Six Nations - after we lost to Scotland we proceeded to lose to France and Ireland (at home) before losing the first two against South Africa. Throw in a Barbarians loss as well if you want. Only got things back against a "change" SA line-up in T3.
2018 Autumn internationals - lost to NZ. Bounced back (slowly) against Japan with a 35-15 win, having trailed at half-time. However, based on what's happened since this win may be better than expected
2019 Six Nations - lost against Wales and then had a fluffer against Italy to get back to winning ways. Didn't finish the tournament too cleverly with a draw against Scotland though.
2019 warm-up fixtures - lost to Wales and bounced back okay against Ireland, but these are only warm-ups and therefore are heavily caveated

[lostinwales]

I wouldn't be too worried about the loss to Wales in Cardiff, for all that the Welsh have taken it as proof they have the plan to beat us. We didn't do just 'OK' vs Ireland in the follow up either.

As you say its just the warm ups therefore meaningless.

As for the choice in the centres. I think people are very guilty of thinking we have two brilliant players therefore must shoehorn both into the team. I think I'd be much happier starting Manu at 13. Joseph can either replace him or we go to the manu 12/joseph 13 lineup only late on when the game has broken up and the numbers don't matter so much.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

If you have Manu in the side, you need to get the most out of him and the best way of doing that is with two play makers i.e. Ford and Farrell. Manu at 12 is simply a blunt instrument, an effective blunt instrument, but still a blunt instrument, he has more to his game than that and the likes of Ford and Farrell bring that out. It is much easier to run player holding dummy lines from 13 with Daley taking the miss pass than it is from 12 where he will attract back row cover, not the 13.

Do we deliberately lose to France, or put out a weaker side, I do not think that would be wise as, as has been said before, winning is a habit.

France have a difficult period with the USA and 2/10 and Tonga 6/10. I do not know the depth of the France squad, but they could easily slip up there especially with only 6 days until England. There must be a strong temptation to play second string sides for those two games. 3 games in 10 days is pretty tough.

[robbo277]

France are much changed against the USA. I assume they'll be up to full-ish strength against Tonga and then same for us.

[formerly known as Sam]

If you have Manu in the side, you need to get the most out of him and the best way of doing that is with two play makers i.e. Ford and Farrell. Manu at 12 is simply a blunt instrument, an effective blunt instrument, but still a blunt instrument, he has more to his game than that and the likes of Ford and Farrell bring that out. It is much easier to run player holding dummy lines from 13 with Daley taking the miss pass than it is from 12 where he will attract back row cover, not the 13.

Been saying this for years. Running Manu into heavy traffic takes away his explosive nature and turns him into a better Ben Te'o as opposed to his natural game where he varies the smash with an outside arcing break. Plus starting wider it's easier to come in on the hard line from outside the vision of the defender.

[No 7&1/2]

Rugby World Cup: England's Manu Tuilagi grateful to be in Japan - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49891019

Well hard to not to be happy for Tuilagi and indeed happy england have him.back on form. Have to say jones seems to have done wonders for the sake up of this team....or we have a good pr team this time around. Either way it's going pretty well.

[lostinwales]

Beshocked is amongst the comment writers on that thread. Pushing Tompkins of course. In this case not as bad as the guy who thinks Manu is a world class 12 and too slow to play 13.....

[LondonTiger]

Tompkins is a decent player, but some way behind Marchant.

[No 7&1/2]

I dont tend to do into the bbc threads as they tend to make beshocked look reasonable most of the time.. personally I love Tompkins however he suffers from.being under played imo by saracens.

[LondonTiger]

Jesus, reading that HYS section makes me grateful for the posters on here.

[LondonTiger]

I dont tend to do into the bbc threads as they tend to make beshocked look reasonable most of the time.. personally I love Tompkins however he suffers from.being under played imo by saracens.

I too like Tompkins as a player - but as you say playing time is an issue. Last season could have been a breakthrough year, but again when it came to the big games he did not start. Things only get tougher this coming season with Daly apparently signed as a centre and Taylor fit again.

[No 7&1/2]

Potentially. Real shame as I actually think hes better at 12 than 13..packs ways more power than he size suggests. Another guy possibly overlooked for it as well.

[Rinsure]

If you have Manu in the side, you need to get the most out of him and the best way of doing that is with two play makers i.e. Ford and Farrell. Manu at 12 is simply a blunt instrument, an effective blunt instrument, but still a blunt instrument, he has more to his game than that and the likes of Ford and Farrell bring that out. It is much easier to run player holding dummy lines from 13 with Daley taking the miss pass than it is from 12 where he will attract back row cover, not the 13.

Been saying this for years. Running Manu into heavy traffic takes away his explosive nature and turns him into a better Ben Te'o as opposed to his natural game where he varies the smash with an outside arcing break. Plus starting wider it's easier to come in on the hard line from outside the vision of the defender.

I think if you have Cokanasiga in the side then he offers another option in the 10/12 channel coming off his wing, at least drawing defenders. Something we saw a few times in the Ireland warm-up, with both Manu and JC offering lines and the ball going to Daly or elsewhere. Having two runners of that size and pace offering themselves gives the defence something to think about, and opens up the wide open spaces elsewhere.

Obviously there are pros and cons to all the wing combinations, but this is one which I think works well in Big Joe's favour.

[yappysnap]

Yea Tuilagi at 12 is such a waste, not as big a waste as that brutally insane tactic of Geraghty at 12, which went great...

[WELL-PAST-IT]

I had a quick look at the HYS section as well. not just Beshocked in there, HERSH as well.

I agree with LT the posters on their make even the worst wums on here look like saints (not Saints, saints). Got through teh first 60 or so posts and got so bored with the idiotic wumming.

[BamBam]

Yeah, imagine what a board with HERSH floating around would look like.. absolute anarchy, right TightHEAD?

[LordDowlais]

Some old members on that message board who have been hounded off this forum, it's a shame, as this place used to be good for a bit of rugby talk and banter.

[Guest]

Disagree about Tuilagi at 13 over 12. Looks better as a 12. Sometimes you just need to do the dirty work. England don't have a 12 who comes close at the crashball stuff. Te'o was closest but very workmanlike, and a stop gap for Tuilagi. No big loss. Better to use him wider in the phaseplays, strike moves, and turnovers anyway. Sometmes it's just a case of keeping the ball ticking over through the phases, trucking it up, making the gainline. Also think Tuilagi is shielded a bit better in defence at 12. I think you can exploit his positioning at 13 - not massively, but hands and pace and his desire for the big hit can be used against him.

He's playing his best rugby at 12 as well. You should focus n that rather than hypothetical gains about having him one out, andtherefore in more space.

[No 7&1/2]

I think most would say hes looked better back at 13. How much of that is down to him finally having an extended run of games though?

[lostinwales]

Disagree about Tuilagi at 13 over 12. Looks better as a 12. Sometimes you just need to do the dirty work. England don't have a 12 who comes close at the crashball stuff. Te'o was closest but very workmanlike, and a stop gap for Tuilagi. No big loss. Better to use him wider in the phaseplays, strike moves, and turnovers anyway. Sometmes it's just a case of keeping the ball ticking over through the phases, trucking it up, making the gainline. Also think Tuilagi is shielded a bit better in defence at 12. I think you can exploit his positioning at 13 - not massively, but hands and pace and his desire for the big hit can be used against him.

He's playing his best rugby at 12 as well. You should focus n that rather than hypothetical gains about having him one out, andtherefore in more space.

He's not a crash ball centre. Because he can do it - and the power thing - that is what he was used for and what people think is all that he's good for. He's best looking for gaps like smaller centers - its just that the power and acceleration means that he can force them instead of relying on guile to find the space to do so.

[No 7&1/2]

Ha. Must have missed Creevy s comments about england being boring and the crass comments about the upcoming game being like a war. Hopefully his rugby is as good as his wind ups!

[Guest]

How much of that is because the opponents he's played at 13 have been the USA and Tonga instead of tier 1 teams?

I also think England are, generally, better with Ford at 10 and Farrell at 12 - particularly when it comes to running the ball, which will obviously be the key difference aiding Tuilagi's impact ball in hand.

The key point is Tuilagi played 12 in England's best performance for years - the win v Ireland this year. Yes, Ireland clearly are now not what they were, rather than just totally outclassed by an equal, but it was still England's best performance I've seen, maybe of EJ's tenure. You could possibly put the Australian tour up there but hard to compare that given it was after a WC year, and Australia probably even more on a downer than Ireland are/were last season.

Just my personal opinion. Tuilagi is a useful string but if you start overplaying him, or building the team/backline around him, it's a foolish idea. Don't make him England's Shane Williams.

[Guest]

All 12s need to be crashball centres in this day and age. Doesn't mean that's all they should be able to do, but Tuilagi literally is a crashball centre. Best one England have.

[No 7&1/2]

He also played 13 against another performance against Ireland. I guess in relation to becoming too reliant, well theres certain players where a substitute will always be felt. Fortunately englands depth is excellent.

[Guest]

Wouldn't put much stock in the warm up games. Tuilag's irreplaceable for England. Been saying it for a while, but he's the difference between wnnning a WC or not, particularly as it looks like it'll be a NZ v Eng SF.

[Rugby Fan]

How much of that is because the opponents he's played at 13 have been the USA and Tonga instead of tier 1 teams?

Tuilagi played 13 when England beat New Zealand in 2012, playing opposite Ma'a Nonu and Conrad Smith. It's long been recognized that he can be effective at outside centre but there were always questions about what midfield combination could make best use of him.

Farrell wasn't always a fluid distributor at 10, so Tuilagi could end up too far away from good ball. Lancaster put a lot of faith in Twelvetrees, because he looked like had decent hands, and a kicking game to support Farrell. He never really came through, though. When Ford started to get time on the international scene, Lancaster imagined deploying the midfield which Jones has himself used, with Tuilagi at 13, outside Ford & Farrell. At this stage, though, Tuilagi was always injured, so we never got to see what Lancaster would have done.

[No 7&1/2]

So from the point of view of he looks better at 12 than 13, which appearances at 13 are you talking about? Hes been decent even with leicester albeit obviously being eased back into the fold. I think we can still win the world cup without him as the squad is class but clearly having all.your players available.is more advantageous!

[No 7&1/2]

Just listening to ben ryan and he'd have tuilagi at 12 purely to get him on the ball more against better defence, farrell at 10. Reckons our ball will be too slow from the ruck to make use of any space.

[LondonTiger]

Disagree about Tuilagi at 13 over 12. Looks better as a 12. Sometimes you just need to do the dirty work. England don't have a 12 who comes close at the crashball stuff. Te'o was closest but very workmanlike, and a stop gap for Tuilagi. No big loss. Better to use him wider in the phaseplays, strike moves, and turnovers anyway. Sometmes it's just a case of keeping the ball ticking over through the phases, trucking it up, making the gainline. Also think Tuilagi is shielded a bit better in defence at 12. I think you can exploit his positioning at 13 - not massively, but hands and pace and his desire for the big hit can be used against him.

He's playing his best rugby at 12 as well. You should focus n that rather than hypothetical gains about having him one out, andtherefore in more space.

Having seen Manu play for a decade now, mainly live but also on TV, I have to agree with whoever you are disagreeing with. As an attacker Manu becomes much less effective at 12 than at 13. He can do a job there but so can many others. He has an excellent outside break which can be used more effectively at 13. He also runs some good lines back into the midfield from wide. From 13 this has him targeting the inside shoulder of the 12 and the outside shoulder of the 10. Run the same lines from 12 and he is running back into the pack. At 12 he is more often used as the dummy runner, but we need to see him with ball in hand.

[Guest]

I think you're overthiking this boys.

You want Tuilagi at 13 because there's more space to attack, right? He can do that wearing #12. No team lines up 10-12-13 in the phaseplays anymore. Not if they're any good, and England certanly don't.

Tuilagi literally doesn't play the second playmaker role for England. I thin Slade was certainly being lined up for that from 13, to come in and as when needed. He can do that in defence as well, left footed kicking option etc. You can give the miss pass to him when you want that clearing option if that's where he is, but because he's useful in attack on the fringes, you have hm there as well, running the ball against the outside shoulder.

Tuilagi at 12 is there for slow ball. To not go backwards from a crashball in defence. To take it up for England when Blly is at the bottom of a ruck. It's not that hard, the basics string the game together and put your team in position to use strke runners.

Also, Tuilagi excels at running over people. Yes, soft shoulders help, but this idea he's 'better' in space s a bit weird. His strength is literally that he's built like a rectangle with limbs who is almost impossible to stop. He doesn't need to be like Joseph to make ground.

[Soul Requiem]

A lot of what you say usually makes sense miaow but you can't have seen much of Tuilagi to think he's used as a crashball, he can do it but he's far better running the outside arc with the occasional direct run that he is doing the latter over and over.

Using Tuilagi like he's Doc is a waste of his talents to be honest.

[LondonTiger]

Just listening to ben ryan and he'd have tuilagi at 12 purely to get him on the ball more against better defence, farrell at 10. Reckons our ball will be too slow from the ruck to make use of any space.

This would mean complete change in the way we play when Farrell/Manu are at 10/12 compared to the 6Ns,.

[Guest]

Just listening to ben ryan and he'd have tuilagi at 12 purely to get him on the ball more against better defence, farrell at 10. Reckons our ball will be too slow from the ruck to make use of any space.

Exactly what I am saying. Ford is your bench option to come on if/when needed, but Farrell is still the starting 10 in my eyes, for the sacrifice of running rugby.

Tuilagi is the obvious 12. England will play less and less wide - and more and more tight and long - as the tournament progresses. Tuilagi can be the difference in tght channels, 1 on 1, in phaseplay. Doesn't matter where he plays but he adds solidity England don't otherwse have for the position.

[Guest]

You've misunderstood what I mean Soul. Even Crotty plays crashball once in a whle. You need to if you play 12. But ideally you have more to you bow, and Tuilagi does. It's not an either/or situaton. As I said, overthinking or maybe underthinking? There's more to the game/a position than just how they are with ball in hand.

[No 7&1/2]

The thing that's different now for tuilagi than when he came onto the scene is the other very strong carriers. I remember pooly crying out for it but look at the team in terms of them now. Vunipola George sinkler itoje underhill and curry (both underrated there) and vunipola in the pack. Cokanasiga and nowell good in the backs. Ford and farrell and youngs tbf is spoilt for choice.

[No 7&1/2]

So which games at 13 do you have in mind miaow? What was.missing from his games there?

[Sponsored content]