ENGLAND SQUAD for QBE Internationals

First topic message reminder :

Uncapped centres Luther Burrell, Joel Tomkins and Henry Trinder have all been added to Stuart Lancaster’s England squad ahead of next month’s QBE Internationals against Australia, Argentina and New Zealand.
 
England Elite Player Squad for QBE Internationals
 
 
Forwards
David Attwood (Bath Rugby)
Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers)
Alex Corbisiero (Northampton Saints)
Tom Johnson (Exeter Chiefs)
Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints)
Matt Kvesic (Gloucester Rugby)
Joe Launchbury (London Wasps)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints)
Joe Marler (Harlequins)
Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby)
Geoff Parling (Leicester Tigers)
Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens)
Mako Vunipola (Saracens)
David Wilson (Bath Rugby)
Tom Wood (Northampton Saints)
Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers)
 
Backs
 
Chris Ashton (Saracens)
Mike Brown (Harlequins)
Freddie Burns (Gloucester Rugby)
Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints)
Danny Care (Harlequins)
Lee Dickson (Northampton Saints)
Owen Farrell (Saracens)
Toby Flood (Leicester Tigers)
Ben Foden (Northampton Saints)
Alex Goode (Saracens)
Kyle Eastmond (Bath Rugby)
Joel Tomkins (Saracens)
Henry Trinder (Gloucester Rugby)
Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester Rugby)
Christian Wade (London Wasps)
Marland Yarde (London Irish)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Mike Brown has been the form fullback by a country mile. It would be a crime to play him on the wing especially with Yarde playing so well. I like Ashton's attacking ability that has always been his strength but he has not been good enough in defence. This season he seems to be trying hard to rectify that weakness so probably worth his place.

It's worth noting that A Farrell said this week that Ashton had problems last season so why the devil did they keep selecting him? They definitely weren't picking on form were they.

Last season the coaches make some massive balls ups in the 6N's and later on. One question if Tom Johnson is the next best 6 cover at 31 years old and with only 5 caps to his name, then how the hell did Lancaster not think to call up the in form and far more experienced Nick Easter in the 6N's instead of Frak around and cocking up with Wood and Lawes getting shuffled around? To me he made a massive mistake there and it's a real concern.

Chjw131 wrote:

hawalsh wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

hawalsh wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

hawalsh wrote:Ewers can't be called up for the training squad because he wasn't selected in the EPS or Saxons in the summer.

That's not the case, he could've selected anyone as injury cover. Not that I think he should've in this instance. Ewers has looked really good but needs a full season and Saxons appearance first. Although Morgan turned down the Saxons when invited!

I still don't understand people going on about Webber. Why would we want to replace a BR with another hooker?

JJ hasn't shown the sort of form that would've got him his place back but picking three centres ahead of him is a bit of a blow to the lad I would've thought. If Corbs is out i'd expect Lancs to select Vunipola, his scrummaging is a work in progress but he could go well against OZ.

Any news on Attwood? Launchbury has put in some more storming performances for Wasps but not really in the same game areas as Attwood.

Are you sure about that?  My understanding was that although that is true during the international window, for training sessions outside that any EPS replacement has to come from the Saxons first.  There was an article last week where Lancaster expressed his frustration at not being able to bring Dickinson or Ewers in, which was well after Croft's injury opened up a cover spot.  Also, not sure how well covering a staright-out 6 with an 8 who hasn't played 6 in some time would have gone down in terms of the ethos of the cover agreement.

Yes. If you want an example of that policy in action look at Henry Trinder.

The following is what was reported in the papers:

Lancaster spoke last week of the constraints of working within the agreement over player release between the Rugby Football Union and Premiership clubs and it is those rules that are likely to prevent him from replacing Croft with his preferred choice.

Number eights Sam Dickinson of Northampton and Dave Ewers of Exeter have excelled since Premiership action began in September but, like Trinder, are not in either senior squad named in August so are set to be rendered unavailable to Lancaster.

"Picking a player from outside the squads is a challenge. It can be achieved, but it's not been achieved yet," Lancaster said.

If Lancaster is unable to promote either Dickinson or Ewers, Tom Johnson of Exeter or Saracens' Will Fraser are in contention to fill the back row vacancy created by Croft's season-ending injury.

So like I suggested, if it is occasionally allowed it must have to be a like-for-like positional player.  Lancaster wanted to bring an extra 8 in but clearly wasn't allowed.

What you suggested originally was that any replacement for a senior player had to come from within the two Elite squads. That is wrong on the evidence. The quote you have used from the press is also inaccurate (see in bold). Trinder has come in from outside the squads.

Therefore without knowing the terms of this 'cover agreement' any speculation as to the replacements for players is purely speculative. Further, who is to say who plays in what position. With the back-row it is even more impossible to clearly discern a set position with players often rotating. As a quick example Tom Wood played No.8 at the start of the year. Tom Corft has been known to play in the second row etc..

Whilst either Dickinson or Ewers may essentially be considered as an '8' to say they would be excluded because they would have to replace Tom Croft, a '6' is not logical. Who is to say who plays where? Do we take the most recent game as evidence of where a player plays? If so you'll see that Dave Ewers played at No.6 for Exeter v Cardiff on the weekend (as he has done many times before). Kai Horstman playing at No.8.

Thus to say either Ewers or Dickinson would be excluded from replacing Tom Croft is a nonsense on the facts. Even the terms of agreement would be called into serious question, if we were in possession of those.

The situation is pretty clear from Lancaster's above quote:

"Picking a player from outside the squads is a challenge. It can be achieved, but it's not been achieved yet,"

Trinder is now the first player to have been selected outside the situation Lancaster describes. It's something which is clearly frowned upon, requires special circumstances and a club happy to negotiate it.

The article was before the selection was announced and was talking about Lancaster's expressed desire to call up Trinder and Dickinson or Ewers but that it wasn't expected to happen because of the agreements in place.  Lancaster got Trinder through (aided no doubt by Allen also being injured from the Saxons), but clearly not Dickinson or Ewers.  That's why I included the part you emboldened in my earlier post, as it illustrates it's not a straightforward matter from the manager simply wanting access to a player.  I've given the reasons why I believe it didn't happen, you don't think them to be the case, but what is certain is that Lancaster didn't get his wish regarding them.

I watched the Exeter v Cardiff game last weekend.  Horstmann came on for the injured Johnson about halfway through the match and in a makeshift backrow he shared 8 duties with Ewers.  Ewers hasn't been selected at 6 since last season for Exeter, it's not his best position and starting him there if need be in the AIs would be as unpreferable as starting Wood at 8 or Vunipola at 6 at that stepped up level.

I'm not so sure Ewers even wants to play for England, I read an article the other day where he said about the England enquiries, "I don’t think I’m ready for that yet and I’m not even thinking about Test rugby, let alone who I could play for"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2456531/Dave-Ewers-Africa-troubled-past-talk-England-eases-pain.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


And on a social media site his profile seems more interested in Zimbabwe & SA rugby.

About me
   i am zimbabwe . and i heart rugby and zimbabwe and springboks

The best thing that ever happened to you
   being born in zimbabwe

What do you hate?
   not being in zimbabwe

Favourite actor/actress
   schalk burger

http://en.netlog.com/Zimbabwe/extra

hawalsh wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

hawalsh wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

hawalsh wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

hawalsh wrote:Ewers can't be called up for the training squad because he wasn't selected in the EPS or Saxons in the summer.

That's not the case, he could've selected anyone as injury cover. Not that I think he should've in this instance. Ewers has looked really good but needs a full season and Saxons appearance first. Although Morgan turned down the Saxons when invited!

I still don't understand people going on about Webber. Why would we want to replace a BR with another hooker?

JJ hasn't shown the sort of form that would've got him his place back but picking three centres ahead of him is a bit of a blow to the lad I would've thought. If Corbs is out i'd expect Lancs to select Vunipola, his scrummaging is a work in progress but he could go well against OZ.

Any news on Attwood? Launchbury has put in some more storming performances for Wasps but not really in the same game areas as Attwood.

Are you sure about that?  My understanding was that although that is true during the international window, for training sessions outside that any EPS replacement has to come from the Saxons first.  There was an article last week where Lancaster expressed his frustration at not being able to bring Dickinson or Ewers in, which was well after Croft's injury opened up a cover spot.  Also, not sure how well covering a staright-out 6 with an 8 who hasn't played 6 in some time would have gone down in terms of the ethos of the cover agreement.

Yes. If you want an example of that policy in action look at Henry Trinder.

The following is what was reported in the papers:

Lancaster spoke last week of the constraints of working within the agreement over player release between the Rugby Football Union and Premiership clubs and it is those rules that are likely to prevent him from replacing Croft with his preferred choice.

Number eights Sam Dickinson of Northampton and Dave Ewers of Exeter have excelled since Premiership action began in September but, like Trinder, are not in either senior squad named in August so are set to be rendered unavailable to Lancaster.

"Picking a player from outside the squads is a challenge. It can be achieved, but it's not been achieved yet," Lancaster said.

If Lancaster is unable to promote either Dickinson or Ewers, Tom Johnson of Exeter or Saracens' Will Fraser are in contention to fill the back row vacancy created by Croft's season-ending injury.

So like I suggested, if it is occasionally allowed it must have to be a like-for-like positional player.  Lancaster wanted to bring an extra 8 in but clearly wasn't allowed.

What you suggested originally was that any replacement for a senior player had to come from within the two Elite squads. That is wrong on the evidence. The quote you have used from the press is also inaccurate (see in bold). Trinder has come in from outside the squads.

Therefore without knowing the terms of this 'cover agreement' any speculation as to the replacements for players is purely speculative. Further, who is to say who plays in what position. With the back-row it is even more impossible to clearly discern a set position with players often rotating. As a quick example Tom Wood played No.8 at the start of the year. Tom Corft has been known to play in the second row etc..

Whilst either Dickinson or Ewers may essentially be considered as an '8' to say they would be excluded because they would have to replace Tom Croft, a '6' is not logical. Who is to say who plays where? Do we take the most recent game as evidence of where a player plays? If so you'll see that Dave Ewers played at No.6 for Exeter v Cardiff on the weekend (as he has done many times before). Kai Horstman playing at No.8.

Thus to say either Ewers or Dickinson would be excluded from replacing Tom Croft is a nonsense on the facts. Even the terms of agreement would be called into serious question, if we were in possession of those.

The situation is pretty clear from Lancaster's above quote:

"Picking a player from outside the squads is a challenge. It can be achieved, but it's not been achieved yet,"

Trinder is now the first player to have been selected outside the situation Lancaster describes. It's something which is clearly frowned upon, requires special circumstances and a club happy to negotiate it.

The article was before the selection was announced and was talking about Lancaster's expressed desire to call up Trinder and Dickinson or Ewers but that it wasn't expected to happen because of the agreements in place.  Lancaster got Trinder through (aided no doubt by Allen also being injured from the Saxons), but clearly not Dickinson or Ewers.  That's why I included the part you emboldened in my earlier post, as it illustrates it's not a straightforward matter from the manager simply wanting access to a player.  I've given the reasons why I believe it didn't happen, you don't think them to be the case, but what is certain is that Lancaster didn't get his wish regarding them.

I watched the Exeter v Cardiff game last weekend.  Horstmann came on for the injured Johnson about halfway through the match and in a makeshift backrow he shared 8 duties with Ewers.  Ewers hasn't been selected at 6 since last season for Exeter, it's not his best position and starting him there if need be in the AIs would be as unpreferable as starting Wood at 8 or Vunipola at 6 at that stepped up level.

I can't remember Horstman playing 8 in that match, I thought he went to the flank.

It definitely seems that bringing Dickinson in from Saints wasn't on the menu regarding the guidelines, ditto Ewers who might not be an option at all.

nth wrote:I'm not so sure Ewers even wants to play for England, I read an article the other day where he said about the England enquiries, "I don’t think I’m ready for that yet and I’m not even thinking about Test rugby, let alone who I could play for"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2456531/Dave-Ewers-Africa-troubled-past-talk-England-eases-pain.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


And on a social media site his profile seems more interested in Zimbabwe & SA rugby.

About me
   i am zimbabwe . and i heart rugby and zimbabwe and springboks

The best thing that ever happened to you
   being born in zimbabwe

What do you hate?
   not being in zimbabwe

Favourite actor/actress
   schalk burger

http://en.netlog.com/Zimbabwe/extra

Sounds fair enough. But that social feed bit (ESP given the URL...) looks as utterly fake as any Q and A I've ever seen, from the 2 overly teenage-girlesque Zimbabwe obsessed answers, the spelling of the word "heart" and the choice of Schalk Burger as an actor. Seems a bit off

I think he was having a bit of a laugh with the Q & A thing, some of the answers I wouldn't expect if it was a straight out fake though.

The critical thing I think is in that Mail quote, he's clearly not dedicated solely to the England cause otherwise he wouldn't have other countries to consider.  As good a player as his performances so far this season suggest he might be, I'm not that comfortable going after players who have to think about whether they want to play for England or not.

Hopefully having watched a much more balanced Australian team play yesterday will have tempered a lot of people over the top expectations of Englands performance against them this AI's.

They are still a class outfit, don't believe the Sky propoganda that they're dead in the water. Australia love being the under dogs and if we do manage a win against them it'll be a great coup because that performance they put in against NZ was probably a lot better then any other teams globally (bar SA).

hawalsh wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

hawalsh wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

hawalsh wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

hawalsh wrote:Ewers can't be called up for the training squad because he wasn't selected in the EPS or Saxons in the summer.

That's not the case, he could've selected anyone as injury cover. Not that I think he should've in this instance. Ewers has looked really good but needs a full season and Saxons appearance first. Although Morgan turned down the Saxons when invited!

I still don't understand people going on about Webber. Why would we want to replace a BR with another hooker?

JJ hasn't shown the sort of form that would've got him his place back but picking three centres ahead of him is a bit of a blow to the lad I would've thought. If Corbs is out i'd expect Lancs to select Vunipola, his scrummaging is a work in progress but he could go well against OZ.

Any news on Attwood? Launchbury has put in some more storming performances for Wasps but not really in the same game areas as Attwood.

Are you sure about that?  My understanding was that although that is true during the international window, for training sessions outside that any EPS replacement has to come from the Saxons first.  There was an article last week where Lancaster expressed his frustration at not being able to bring Dickinson or Ewers in, which was well after Croft's injury opened up a cover spot.  Also, not sure how well covering a staright-out 6 with an 8 who hasn't played 6 in some time would have gone down in terms of the ethos of the cover agreement.

Yes. If you want an example of that policy in action look at Henry Trinder.

The following is what was reported in the papers:

Lancaster spoke last week of the constraints of working within the agreement over player release between the Rugby Football Union and Premiership clubs and it is those rules that are likely to prevent him from replacing Croft with his preferred choice.

Number eights Sam Dickinson of Northampton and Dave Ewers of Exeter have excelled since Premiership action began in September but, like Trinder, are not in either senior squad named in August so are set to be rendered unavailable to Lancaster.

"Picking a player from outside the squads is a challenge. It can be achieved, but it's not been achieved yet," Lancaster said.

If Lancaster is unable to promote either Dickinson or Ewers, Tom Johnson of Exeter or Saracens' Will Fraser are in contention to fill the back row vacancy created by Croft's season-ending injury.

So like I suggested, if it is occasionally allowed it must have to be a like-for-like positional player.  Lancaster wanted to bring an extra 8 in but clearly wasn't allowed.

What you suggested originally was that any replacement for a senior player had to come from within the two Elite squads. That is wrong on the evidence. The quote you have used from the press is also inaccurate (see in bold). Trinder has come in from outside the squads.

Therefore without knowing the terms of this 'cover agreement' any speculation as to the replacements for players is purely speculative. Further, who is to say who plays in what position. With the back-row it is even more impossible to clearly discern a set position with players often rotating. As a quick example Tom Wood played No.8 at the start of the year. Tom Corft has been known to play in the second row etc..

Whilst either Dickinson or Ewers may essentially be considered as an '8' to say they would be excluded because they would have to replace Tom Croft, a '6' is not logical. Who is to say who plays where? Do we take the most recent game as evidence of where a player plays? If so you'll see that Dave Ewers played at No.6 for Exeter v Cardiff on the weekend (as he has done many times before). Kai Horstman playing at No.8.

Thus to say either Ewers or Dickinson would be excluded from replacing Tom Croft is a nonsense on the facts. Even the terms of agreement would be called into serious question, if we were in possession of those.

The situation is pretty clear from Lancaster's above quote:

"Picking a player from outside the squads is a challenge. It can be achieved, but it's not been achieved yet,"

Trinder is now the first player to have been selected outside the situation Lancaster describes. It's something which is clearly frowned upon, requires special circumstances and a club happy to negotiate it.

The article was before the selection was announced and was talking about Lancaster's expressed desire to call up Trinder and Dickinson or Ewers but that it wasn't expected to happen because of the agreements in place.  Lancaster got Trinder through (aided no doubt by Allen also being injured from the Saxons), but clearly not Dickinson or Ewers.  That's why I included the part you emboldened in my earlier post, as it illustrates it's not a straightforward matter from the manager simply wanting access to a player.  I've given the reasons why I believe it didn't happen, you don't think them to be the case, but what is certain is that Lancaster didn't get his wish regarding them.

I watched the Exeter v Cardiff game last weekend.  Horstmann came on for the injured Johnson about halfway through the match and in a makeshift backrow he shared 8 duties with Ewers.  Ewers hasn't been selected at 6 since last season for Exeter, it's not his best position and starting him there if need be in the AIs would be as unpreferable as starting Wood at 8 or Vunipola at 6 at that stepped up level.

You're missing the point. The player and/or players being discussed are irrelevant. Whether Ewers plays better at 8 than 6 has nothing to do with whether he could've in theory replaced Tom Croft or not.

What you've said is that Dickinson or Ewers or Player X who plays 'No.8' couldn't be selected from outside the squad because they don't play in the position that Tom Croft or Player Y who plays 'No.6' does. What i'm saying is that is not a logical reason as to why a player couldn't be selected on that basis.

What may well be true is that any player's inclusion from outside the EPS may have to be negotiated with their club. Whether in fact, that club could prevent the player from being so included is, I feel questionable. In any case it would surely cause a lot of unwanted friction with the player and club. Without the details of the EPS agreement it's mainly speculation but these points stand:

a) A player CAN be selected from outside the EPS even over other players in their 'position'. That has been confirmed with the Trinder situation, even allowing for what Lancs said on the matter.

b) A player couldn't, in theory, be excluded from such selection on the basis that they don't cover the injured player's 'position'.

c) Lancs may well not have actually wanted to bring either Dickinson or Ewers in as an injury replacement (the right call in my view) and thus their non-selection is not justification for countering theory b).

I thought it HAD been achieved...i dont think Launchbury was in the squad when he was first picked?

IIRC:

1) The EPS agreement allows for replacements to be called up for injury or long term loss of form (whatever that means)
2) There are restrictions on bringing a player straight into the EPS from nowhere, (I think that's where the like-for-like idea comes in) but a player can be promoted from the Saxons as long as there's space in the EPS because of (1)
3) Players can be promoted to the Saxons without any restrictions as long as there's space in the Saxons.

Martin Johnson pulled the trick a couple of times - he'd put a bolter into the Saxons as injury cover for someone and then instantly promote them to the full EPS.