England Saxons vs Irish Wolfhounds

The England Saxons face Ireland Wolfhounds at Irish Independent Park on Friday, January 30 in Cork. Given that the six nations are too bloomin far away and this is a big RWC year with many players battling over a place in international squads i'm looking forward to this one. Who do we think should be in both teams. This is my england team

Corbisiero
George
Brookes
Kitchener
Kruis
Croft
Kvesic
Waldrom

Wigglesworth
Cipriani
Yarde
Slade
Joseph
Rokodunguni
Foden

Thomas
Cowan-Dickie
Vunipola
Parling
Clark
Dickson
Burgess
Myler

Would like to see something like the following for the Wolfhounds (not 100% sure on the injury front).

Cronin
Strauss
Furlong
Foley
Tuohy
Diack
TOD/Murphy
Murphy/Copeland

Marmion
Keatley
Gilroy
Olding
Fitzgerald
Leader/Kearney Jnr
Jones

Rep.
Casey
Buckley
Archer
Henderson
Dom Ryan
Reddan
Jackson
Earls

The Saxons squad doesn't include anyone in the full squad of 32. I'd expect Kruis, Brookes, Foden, Dickson/Wigglesworth, Corbisiero/Vunipola, and possibly a few others in there. Hopefully sense will prevail and some will play.

1 Mullan
2 Jamie George
3 Keiron Brookes
4 Kruis (Dom Barrow had he been fit)
5 Kitchener
6 Calum Clark
7 Matt Kvesic
8 Mark Wilson (Ewers with the senior set up)

9 Robson
10 Cipriani
11 Rokoduguni
12 Slade
13 Burgess - Centres as stated in the Telegraph
14 Wade
15 Foden

GF - you do like playing 6s at 8

Oh come on...you know I had to shoehorn one Falcon in there

Actually Wilson has played a lot of rugby for us at 8 this season and is very good.

For Ireland I'd like to see something along the lines of:-

1. Cronin
2. Strauss
3. Ah You
4. Foley
5. McCarthy
6. Conan
7. O'Donnell
8. Copeland
9. McGrath
10. Jackson
11. Gilroy
12. Marshall
13. Fitzgerald
14. McFadden
15. Jones

Bench: Furlong, Herring, Archer, O'Callaghan, Diack, Boss, Hanaran, D Kearney

Hoping Olding, Marmion and Touhy make the senior squad.

It's a shame these games are so infrequent now. Is it just one Saxons game a year? It's more meaningful than a Barbarians game (where England pretty much put out a Saxons team anyway).

Just the one. There used to be two but it's all largely pointless. Not really something players should be judged on in my opinion. Other than their capability in playing for the Barbarians. Which is why I was surprised that Wales had renewed theirs (I thought they were playing us but not sure where I got that idea from).

I think this is a really valuable game for people to put themselves in contention for the RWC. It is for us anyways as there won't be too much rotation in the 6N I'd expect. We have a lot of guys coming back from injury who need game time too, like McFadden, Dave Kearney and Earls.

England have pretty impressive depth at the minute and can see them giving us a lot of trouble up front. Not too concerned about the result but would hope to see some individuals impress and put themselves in RWC contention.

rodders wrote:I think this is a really valuable game for people to put themselves in contention for the RWC. It is for us anyways as there won't be too much rotation in the 6N I'd expect. We have a lot of guys coming back from injury who need game time too, like McFadden, Dave Kearney and Earls.

England have pretty impressive depth at the minute and can see them giving us a lot of trouble up front. Not too concerned about the result but would hope to see some individuals impress and put themselves in RWC contention.  

I would hope so but the last few years we have been really bad in the Saxons games, regardless of some of the quality of the players

I know its been said many times before...but it would be great if someone would start funding the Churchill cup again.

I thought the IRB stopped it because they didn't want A games sops for the tier 2 nations. They wanted them playing in full internationals (US and Canada have joined the PNC).

HammerofThunor wrote:I thought the IRB stopped it because they didn't want A games sops for the tier 2 nations. They wanted them playing in full internationals (US and Canada have joined the PNC).

Stupid IRB. As far as I could see the Churchill worked well for everyone. Cant see how having a regular tournament at home where you can stay competitive (if still lose) is any worse than getting occasional hidings when one of the big boys bother to come round, or travelling god knows where for inconsistant quality games.

How many changes does Lancaster get to make to the EPS in January?

There are a number in the squad that need injury cover:

Ben Morgan
Joe Launchbury
Manu Tuilagi


Using the names from the RFU website, I’d hazard a guess at:

01. Alex Waller
02. Tom Youngs
03. Henry Thomas
04. Graham Kitchener
05. George Kruis
06. Someone Else?
07. Callum Clarke
08. Thomas Waldrom

09. Lee Dickson
10. Stephen Myler

11. Semesa Rokoduguni
12. Henry Slade
13. Jon Joseph
14. Jack Nowell
15. Ben Foden

Think the backline has a lot going for it!

Are the Saxons not playing Scotland as well?

Cumbrian wrote:How many changes does Lancaster get to make to the EPS in January?  

There are a number in the squad that need injury cover:

Ben Morgan
Joe Launchbury
Manu Tuilagi


Using the names from the RFU website, I’d hazard a guess at:

01. Alex Waller
02. Tom Youngs
03. Henry Thomas
04. Graham Kitchener
05. George Kruis
06. Someone Else?
07. Callum Clarke
08. Thomas Waldrom

09. Lee Dickson
10. Stephen Myler

11. Semesa Rokoduguni
12. Henry Slade
13. Jon Joseph
14. Jack Nowell
15. Ben Foden

Think the backline has a lot going for it!

5, I think. Although I thought that was supposed to have happened already. The only talk I've heard is about the 6 Nations squad announcement in a couple of weeks so I'm guessing he'll do it then.

HammerofThunor wrote:I thought the IRB stopped it because they didn't want A games sops for the tier 2 nations. They wanted them playing in full internationals (US and Canada have joined the PNC).

Churchill Cup clashed with Tiblisi Cup (where Ireland and SA for instance have been sending 'A'/Emerging teams).

If it's only the 1 saxons game during the 6N why not make it a mini series? Saxons play the wolfhounds in 3 tests, 1 year all 3 test in Ireland then the next it goes to England. Would be a pretty decent money spinner and a good way to take the game ot different parts of england at least. Also good from a team and coaches point of view as they get more time training together and we get to see more combinations etc.

We could do the same 1 game each for Munster, Connacht and Ulster

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I thought the IRB stopped it because they didn't want A games sops for the tier 2 nations. They wanted them playing in full internationals (US and Canada have joined the PNC).

Churchill Cup clashed with Tiblisi Cup (where Ireland and SA for instance have been sending 'A'/Emerging teams).

Wonderful information but fail to see the relevance. (EDIT: also 2 years gap between one ending and the other starting, so fail to see the 'clash') (EDIT2: "Have been sending"? You mean "Had sent"? They've only entered once each (it's run twice) and both were below the 'A' sides)

belovedfrosties wrote:If it's only the 1 saxons game during the 6N why not make it a mini series?  Saxons play the wolfhounds in 3 tests, 1 year all 3 test in Ireland then the next it goes to England.  Would be a pretty decent money spinner and a good way to take the game ot different parts of england at least.  Also good from a team and coaches point of view as they get more time training together and we get to see more combinations etc.

Because it means that there would be 64 players missing to England instead of 32. The international game is bloated enough, it doesn't need an expantion of the second tier (unless it's during the summer).

Cumbrian wrote:How many changes does Lancaster get to make to the EPS in January?  

Was an EPS ever actually named?

As we are now in the run-up to WC - rather than selecting 3rd choice players, I would like to see Lancaster in the main select a second string squad.

So if we have the following as the test 23:

Marler, Hartley, Wilson, Lawes, Attwood, Wood, Robshaw, Vunipola, Care, Ford, May, Barritt, Burrell, Watson, Brown; Webber, vunipola, Brookes, Parling, Haskell, Youngs, Farrell, Yarde

I would then like to see a Saxons made up of:

Mullan, Youngs, Brookes, Kitchener, Kruis, Clark, Kvesic, someone (wilson out of position maybe), Simpson, Myler, Yarde, Burgess, Joseph, Nowell, Foden
Cowan-Dickie, Auterac, Thomas, Matthews, Gibson, Wigglesworth, Slade, Eastmond

Summat liek that anyway

The thing about an EPS is that players like Cole and Manu should get picked anyway, and if they're not match fit they can be replaced in the match day squad for the Wales game. So, for example, Brookes and Burgess could be named in the Saxons to play the Wolfhounds, then added to the Six Nations squad a week later.

Alternatively, could we see Cole and Tuilagi get run outs to try to prove their fitness.

You can't pick your Saxons team without your EPS in place really. But my team would be:

Mako
Youngs
Brookes
Kitchener
Parling (C)
Ewers
Clark
Waldrom
Simpson
Cipriani
Wade
Slade
Burgess
Roko
Goode

George
Mullan
Thomas
Barrow
Kvesic
Robson
Burns
Daly

Wolfhounds should look to give returning senior players some game time if it's needed. Thus, players such as O'Brien, Trimble and Healy if they're fit n raring.

Marty Moore may get enough time in the H Cup matches so he should be good to go for 6N.

Team select from:

Healy
Cronin
Strauss
McGrath
Herring
Archer

Tuohy
Foley

Conan
O'Donnell
O'Brien

McGrath/Marmion
Keatley/Hanrahan

Olding
McCloskey
Reid

Gilroy
Earls
Trimble
Fanning

Payne
Jones

George Kruis has been cited for a dangerous tackle. If he is found guilty he will probably be ruled out of this game.

Neither McCloskey or Trimble will be fit for this one PotHale.

Allowing for Kruis being out and the likely unavailabiltiy of Manu this would be my Saxons team to face the Wolfhounds. Bearing in mind that they always field a pretty experienced and decent team this is what i'd like to see:

1. M Vunipola
2. J George
3. H Thomas
4. M Itoje
5. G Ktichener
6. D Ewers
7. C Clark
8. T Waldrom
9. R Wigglesworth
10. D Cipriani
11. C Sharples
12. S Burgess
13. H Slade
14. C Wade
15. B Foden

16. L Cowan-Dickie 17. N Auterac 18. F Balmain 19. E Stooke 20. M Kveisc 21. D Robson 22. O Devoto 23. J Nowell

Allowing for some unavailability I think that team has the experience and ability to perform and score some tries. Although no doubt it'll be a force 10 gale over there.

Apologies if I'm wrong but don't think anyone has brought this up -

Reports from the Telegraph indicate the centres are likely to line up as follows for this game:

12 Slade
13 Burgess

If this is true, what do people think is the reasoning/significance behind moving Burgess to 13 when he primarily plays 12 for Bath, and Slade to 12 when he primarily plays 13 for Exeter?

Could this be to do with management trying to fast track Burgess into the 13 position, to anticipate another Tuilagi injury at a crucial time, or even an indication that they don't feel Tuilagi and Burgess could partner each other?

Obviously Slade also has skills that can be used from the 12 position to bring Burgess into the game effectively as well.

Looks like a fascinating partnership with the type of balance the first team lacks. If Burgess is used as a decoy with Slade running in behind to play the ball it could be a devastating way to release the back 3. Obviously Burgess' lines from 13 would be very useful with a 12 that can delay and draw the defenders' attention in as well.

Probably to do with getting the Saxons to mirror the first team's playing style. People talk about the importance of players being immersed in a playing style throughout their "development pathway" ( ) so Lancaster may want the Saxons to stick with his second distributor preference, even where it would make more sense to have them to other way around.

In practice centre positions don't tend to last more than one phase anyway.

Are England fans comfortable with Burgess getting fast tracked? Smacks of a huge double standard to me, i mean he can hardly justify selection on the back of consistent performances. Or is this just a huge gamble on the basis of what he did in league and what he might do for England's midfield.

SuperGuinness69 wrote:Apologies if I'm wrong but don't think anyone has brought this up -

Reports from the Telegraph indicate the centres are likely to line up as follows for this game:

12 Slade
13 Burgess

If this is true, what do people think is the reasoning/significance behind moving Burgess to 13 when he primarily plays 12 for Bath, and Slade to 12 when he primarily plays 13 for Exeter?  

Could this be to do with management trying to fast track Burgess into the 13 position, to anticipate another Tuilagi injury at a crucial time, or even an indication that they don't feel Tuilagi and Burgess could partner each other?

Obviously Slade also has skills that can be used from the 12 position to bring Burgess into the game effectively as well.

Looks like a fascinating partnership with the type of balance the first team lacks. If Burgess is used as a decoy with Slade running in behind to play the ball it could be a devastating way to release the back 3. Obviously Burgess' lines from 13 would be very useful with a 12 that can delay and draw the defenders' attention in as well.

Well Slade is a fly half who is cameo-ing in the centres for this season (perhaps slightly longer? I'm not sure), the move to inside centre will take him closer to the decision makers of the team and possibly take the pressure off Burgess? I'm not at all convinced Burgess should be in there to be honest, he hasn't earned it yet. If the Irish pick a more experienced team (as they generally do for these fixtures) I can see an uncomfortable night for these lads.

Gwlad wrote:Are England fans comfortable with Burgess getting fast tracked? Smacks of a huge double standard to me, i mean he can hardly justify selection on the back of consistent performances. Or is this just a huge gamble on the basis of what he did in league and what he might do for England's midfield.

It's a Saxons game. I don't really care. It's for trying crazy stuff out.

EDIT: just to clarify, I don't like the idea of using it to tie players to a country. But it's not a full cap. It's effectively a trials game, and can be used to see how players go in training and out of their comfort zone.

Chjw131 wrote:Allowing for Kruis being out and the likely unavailabiltiy of Manu this would be my Saxons team to face the Wolfhounds. Bearing in mind that they always field a pretty experienced and decent team this is what i'd like to see:

1. M Vunipola
2. J George
3. H Thomas
4. M Itoje
5. G Ktichener
6. D Ewers
7. C Clark
8. T Waldrom
9. R Wigglesworth
10. D Cipriani
11. C Sharples
12. S Burgess
13. H Slade
14. C Wade
15. B Foden

16. L Cowan-Dickie 17. N Auterac 18. F Balmain 19. E Stooke 20. M Kveisc 21. D Robson 22. O Devoto 23. J Nowell

Allowing for some unavailability I think that team has the experience and ability to perform and score some tries. Although no doubt it'll be a force 10 gale over there.

Quite like that team to be honest. Throwing Itoje in at 4 - ballsy but I like it. He looks like a real talent when he's given gametime by Saracens (it's just a shame they don't give him more). Would probably put in Rokodiguini instead of Sharples but wouldn't change it much.

SuperGuinness69 wrote:Apologies if I'm wrong but don't think anyone has brought this up -

Reports from the Telegraph indicate the centres are likely to line up as follows for this game:

12 Slade
13 Burgess

If this is true, what do people think is the reasoning/significance behind moving Burgess to 13 when he primarily plays 12 for Bath, and Slade to 12 when he primarily plays 13 for Exeter?  

My guess is that England plan to use him off the bench as an impact player and want to see which positions he can cover... or as you say maybe they see him as a 13....or could be just part of his development to try him in different positions.....

1. Vunipola
2. George
3. Thomas

4. Itoje
5. Robson

6. Garvey
7. Fraser
8. Ewers

09. Simpson
10. Cipriani

12. Burgess
13. Slade

11. Nowell
14. Wade
15. Foden

16. Cowan-Dickie
17. Mullan
18. Balmain
19. Fearns
20. Kvesic
21. Robson
22. Burns
23. Addison

R4E, Robson?

If you are going with experiance, I would have thought that Day would be quite away ahead of Robson.

Where is also this young Englsih talent coming through at 4 & 5

beshocked wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:Allowing for Kruis being out and the likely unavailabiltiy of Manu this would be my Saxons team to face the Wolfhounds. Bearing in mind that they always field a pretty experienced and decent team this is what i'd like to see:

1. M Vunipola
2. J George
3. H Thomas
4. M Itoje
5. G Ktichener
6. D Ewers
7. C Clark
8. T Waldrom
9. R Wigglesworth
10. D Cipriani
11. C Sharples
12. S Burgess
13. H Slade
14. C Wade
15. B Foden

16. L Cowan-Dickie 17. N Auterac 18. F Balmain 19. E Stooke 20. M Kveisc 21. D Robson 22. O Devoto 23. J Nowell

Allowing for some unavailability I think that team has the experience and ability to perform and score some tries. Although no doubt it'll be a force 10 gale over there.

Quite like that team to be honest. Throwing Itoje in at 4 - ballsy but I like it. He looks like a real talent when he's given gametime by Saracens (it's just a shame they don't give him more). Would probably put in Rokodiguini instead of Sharples but wouldn't change it much.

Thank you Beshocked. I just get the feeling that Itoje is one of those players who will match performance with the challenge. I can see him having a strong game and if that's the case he might be brought into the senior camp to train in much the way Launchbury was in the early days.

Launchbury and Itoje really aren't comparable at this point. When Launchbury first made the Saxons squad he had played 16+4 games for Wasps in the Premiership. Although he didn't play any games for Saxons as he was called up for England duty in the AI.

Itoje has played in 1+4 Premiership games.

However, in my mind, the Saxons is not there for the next best 32 English players. It's there to develop and identify players for the full national side. So having Itoje in would be reasonable. Although, if...due to other call ups, he was likely to start for the Saracens, I think it would be better for him to do that.

HammerofThunor wrote:Launchbury and Itoje really aren't comparable at this point. When Launchbury first made the Saxons squad he had played 16+4 games for Wasps in the Premiership. Although he didn't play any games for Saxons as he was called up for England duty in the AI.

Itoje has played in 1+4 Premiership games.

However, in my mind, the Saxons is not there for the next best 32 English players. It's there to develop and identify players for the full national side. So having Itoje in would be reasonable.  Although, if...due to other call ups, he was likely to start for the Saracens, I think it would be better for him to do that.

They're comparable in the sense that they are both young locks and both were name-checked by Lancaster as far back as 2011. I take the point that Launchbury had played more games for Wasps but that was out of necessity as much as anything else. He was certainly a bolt from the blue when he was asked to train with the senior squad during the 2012 6N.

What Lancs likes to do, and I think he's spot on in this regard, is introduce high quality youngsters to the England set-up through the Saxons from a very young age and the stand-out ones from there on to training with the Seniors. It's an excellent way of bedding in young international players and it ensures that there's some joined up thinking, and a clear path of progression from the U20s side.

Ergo I don't think it's a 50-1 that Itoje might be selected alongside Kitchener.

Is there an age limit on who can play for the Saxons?

I have heard some people saying that Burgess should be in the Saxon squad. Is he to old?

I thought the Saxon squad was for the up and coming players. Not players that are all ready established.

Picking the side is a bit difficult because it depends on who will be in the senior side.  However if the idea is to give a run out to some of the fringe selections who would not otherwise get any game time or to give some outsiders a chance, then the side listed (by Chjw131) is not too bad.

My only changes would be Garvey at blindside.  Maybe Paterson for Itoje (though good thought).  Only Paterson because many other choices are injured or likely to feature in the main squad - Launchbury, Slater, Barrow are injured and Kruis maybe unavailable.  Love to see Simpson, he seems one of the form SH's in the premiership.   Rokodiguini  rather than Sharples.

But plenty of options even with injuries but may be no stand-outs

majesticimperialman wrote:Is there an age limit on who can play for the Saxons?

There's no age limit. It's part of the EPS agreement, and effectively the England 'A' team. A coach can use it however he wants. Anyone can be selected provided they qualify for England.

My guess based on current injury status, therefore subject to change;

1. Denis Buckley
2. Richardt Strauss
3. Tadhg Furlong
4. Alan O'Connor
5. Dave Foley
6. Jack Conan
7. Tommy O'Donnell
8. Robin Copeland
9. Kieran Marmion
10. JJ Hanrahan
11. Craig Gilroy
12. Noel Reid
13. Darren Cave
14. Keith Earls
15. Darragh Leader

16. Duncan Casey 17. Callum Black 18. Rodney Ah You 19. Robbie Diack 20. Dominic Ryan 21. Isaac Boss 22. Ian Humphreys 23. Darragh Fanning

The thing with these teams is that could be miles out.

Just going to throw this out there, but Josh Beaumont has been playing brilliantly at no.8 for Sale and may be worth looking at. He's at an unfashionable northern club so undoubtedly going to be ignored but we are running low on no.8's so I thought I would mention him.

Usually I am happy for the Saxons to be used for development players. However this close to the WC and with the injury list building, I would like it to be used for people who are really pushing for an RWC squad place and rarely start for the full team. These guys need to start being looked at outside of the club environment and playing together.

After his performance against Touliuse I'd like to see Joseph at 13, especially as he already has some Int experience.

Charlie Matthews will probably be back up lock for this one

I hope not, im a Quins fan and he is no where near ready. Most of the time I wouldn't even start him in the AP. He's a big lad but has no clue how to use it yet.