Englands Summer Tour of NZ - The rugby

First topic message reminder :

NZ tour squad

England squad flying on May 27 (30)
Props
Joe Marler (Harlequins), Matt Mullan (London Wasps), Kieran Brookes (Newcastle Falcons), Henry Thomas (Sale Sharks), David Wilson (Bath Rugby)

Hookers
Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs), Joe Gray (Harlequins), Dave Ward (Harlequins), Rob Webber (Bath Rugby)

Locks
Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby), Joe Launchbury (London Wasps), Geoff Parling (Leicester Tigers), Ed Slater (Leicester Tigers)

Back rows
James Haskell (London Wasps), Tom Johnson (Exeter Chiefs), Matt Kvesic (Gloucester Rugby), Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby), Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)

Scrum halves
Danny Care (Harlequins), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Fly halves
Freddie Burns (Gloucester Rugby), Danny Cipriani (Sale Sharks)

Centres
Kyle Eastmond (Bath Rugby), Manusamoa Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers), Henry Trinder (Gloucester Rugby), Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester Rugby)

Wings
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby), Marland Yarde (London Irish)

Full backs
Mike Brown (Harlequins), Chris Pennell (Worcester Warriors)

Prem Final - 31st May (Sarries v Saints)

England v Baa Baas - 1st June

New Zealand v England (First Test)- 7th June
New Zealand v England (Second Test) - 14th June
Crusaders v England - 17th June
New Zealand v England (Third Test) - 21st June.

So would you say the definates so far (injury permitting) for the 1st test:

1 Marler
2
3 Wilson
4 Launchbury
5 Attwood
6
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan

9 Care
10 Cipriani

11 Yarde
12
13 Tuilagi
14 May
15 Brown

You'd throw Attwood in there as well and May. Robshaw and Tuilagi will deinitely start but still convinced they'll be in those positions (swapping between 6 and 12 respectiveyl possibly).

Attwood yes i missed him out. May i wasnt sure about, but i guess yes he should probably start.

The teams beginning to pick itself...and to be honest.....its not looking that bad!

I don't think we can say Burns is a definate yet. He's been in the squad and Lancaster puts a lot of stock in that. But other than that you've got everything covered. If Webber is fit he will be hooker

In the absence of Lawes, I am really looking forward to seeing that second row combination of Launchbury and Attwood. Attwood provides some real ballast and bulk around the pitch. He's also got a knack of finding open channels and tearing away for a lengthy run (lengthy in terms of forwards-nothing over 10m). His physicality has improved immensely as well. I remember him saying in an interview that Lancaster had tasked him with playing more like his size allows. I really think he's done that.

As a side note, Slater on the blindside for me. He's found a terrific vein of form and we will need that against the ABs in the first test.

I think if Cipriani plays you need to put in Tuilagi at 12. If not the options are rather lightweight right?

Can't have 2 lightweights at 10-12. Might as well stick up the white flag before kick off.

What are the centre options?

Tuilagi and who?

HammerofThunor wrote:I don't think we can say Burns is a definate yet. He's been in the squad and Lancaster puts a lot of stock in that. But other than that you've got everything covered. If Webber is fit he will be hooker

I dont have Burns in there mate?

Eddie,

Yeah i do think Attwood & Launchbury is going to be good to watch. And Slater is a good call for the 6 spot. Maybe not the type that Lancaster would choose at 6 though. I was thinking he's more likely to go with Johnson. But id prefer him to go with Slater.

Him, Attwood and Ben Morgan give you some serious bulk in there.

Is atwood a good lineout operator?

NZ now have a decent lineout. England will need to pick a good backrow lineout man to keep competitive.

I'm pretty sure Attwood is a lineout option, though he is pretty hefty.

I really hope Slater goes to 6. I like Johnson, and I think there's certainly a role for him in the squad, but I just think we are going to need to be firing on all cylinders. Slater's physicality is would also be such an asset.

If 36 is fit he isn't that lightweight

fa0019 wrote:I think if Cipriani plays you need to put in Tuilagi at 12. If not the options are rather lightweight right?

Can't have 2 lightweights at 10-12. Might as well stick up the white flag before kick off.

What are the centre options?

Tuilagi and who?

Hopefully 36 and Tuilagi

But, otherwise;

Allen Tuilagi
Eastmond Tuilagi

Allen/Tuilagi would be very good. If Cipriani (or Burns) and Manu are at 10 and 13 respectively then what we really need from our 12 is Conrad Smith type controller in the middle, somewhere who can keep calm and maintain order in the backs while the guys around them try the miracle plays.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I don't think we can say Burns is a definate yet. He's been in the squad and Lancaster puts a lot of stock in that. But other than that you've got everything covered. If Webber is fit he will be hooker

I dont have Burns in there mate? .

Sorry, meant Cipriani isn't definite as Burns has played n the squad already and Lancaster likes that.   

Personally I'd start with Haskell at 6 and have Slater on the bench for lock. But wouldn't be against Slater starting at 6 with Haskell on the bench

If selected Allen wouldn't let anyone down and in my opinion has earnt his chance if given it. As a Tigers fan I'm admittedly biased but he's been consistently one of the best performing centres in the Prem for several season.

1.Marler
2.Webber
3.Wilson
4.Launchbury
5.Attwood
6.Haskell or Johnson
7.Robshaw
8.Morgan

9.Care
10.Burns or Cipriani

11.Yarde
12.Allen
13.Tuilagi
14.May
15.Brown

I accept the focus has turned to 10 with Ford out but I feel Webber getting fit is the most important variable now. Without a platform from the forwards the backs will likely struggle regardless of who's at 10. I rate Ward highly but if Webber gets fit the pack immediately starts looking far more complete. He's adds another very physical presence in defence, set piece and the breakdown. Plus he offers some good touches with ball hand.

Eastmond has been omitted by bath AGAIN!!!!Im starting to doubt if he will even tour now.it was reported he stormed out a few weeks back but it was apparently sorted out.He has so much talent would be a travesty if he was lost back to league.

sickofwendy wrote:Eastmond has been omitted by bath AGAIN!!!!Im starting to doubt if he will even tour now.it was reported he stormed out a few weeks back but it was apparently sorted out.He has so much talent would be a travesty if he was lost back to league.

Really odd way to handle such a talent.

If Bath don't want him just let him go and we'll gladly take him at Quins! He'll even get to touch the ball during a game and everything then!!   

To be fair to him he did say this in the week,

“I’m not playing and it’s hard but I’m just trying my best to help my team-mates out so they can prepare for the games as best they can,” said Eastmond.

“Everybody is up for selection every week here and the last two games I haven’t played. The guys think there is a better route to go to win the game, and that’s fine. We all back what we are doing and if there is a better way to play then we all fully support that.

“We’ve got a few options in midfield and that can be a good thing as the opposition might not pick up on who is playing or the style we will play that weekend.

“I think there’s still a bit more improvement in me. It’s been a bit up and down and I started the season with an injury.

“But these things happen to all players and it’s not something I’m worried about at all. Hopefully we can end the season on a high on Friday.”

That sort of view may impact more upon on Lancaster than anything as he doesn't appear to be throwing his toys out of the pram.

He's the real question about Eastmond....is he big enough to play international 12?

Depressing question but yes. Possibly more questions raised with Ford next to him but inbetween Farrel and Tuilagi/Burrell I think there's a really nice balance.

GeordieFalcon wrote:He's the real question about Eastmond....is he big enough to play international 12?

The answer is yes he is but you may have to make some allowances for that in the make up of the rest of the team. I still think he'd make a great impact sub, particularly with his ability to play across a range of positions and to be able to wreak havoc if given any space by a tiring defence

Yeh, don't think there are any questions about his defence really, especially relating to his size. He held up in league, and he certainly holds his own in union. He's certainly a strong guy, and I've never had worries over his defence.

I think his attacking flair outweighs his size limitations. Too often it's easy to focus on what a player hasn't got.

Do you actually think Eastmond is good enough to unlock a top class defence?

I thought he struggled in matches vs Saracens,Sale and Saints to break down their defences.

Now I know that's only 3 games but two of the sides are pretty much the benchmark in the AP.

I think he has a great skill set to play there. Think he needs to add more to his kicking game though.

beshocked wrote:Do you actually think Eastmond is good enough to unlock a top class defence?

I thought he struggled in matches vs Saracens,Sale and Saints to break down their defences.

Now I know that's only 3 games but two of the sides are pretty much the benchmark in the AP.

You're right, and I'm not fully convinced he is yet. He has shown promise and potential, so I think at this stage it is more hope that he can!

If Allen is available, he'd be my choice to start at 12 over Eastmond. What about you?

beshocked wrote:Do you actually think Eastmond is good enough to unlock a top class defence?

I thought he struggled in matches vs Saracens,Sale and Saints to break down their defences.

Now I know that's only 3 games but two of the sides are pretty much the benchmark in the AP.

We wont know until we try. The problem is that if he doesnt get to use the dancing feet its going to be all too easy to rubbish him, especially if he ends up having to tackle big guys all day. It tends to be easier to have a higher regard for the guys who are always prepared to run into brick walls than those who avoid them, regardless of their actual success, because at least they are 'trying hard'.

I hope he gets a real chance to show what he can do.

Ive seen glimpses of his skills (against an admittedly woeful Argentinian side last summer) and i think they would be great for this England side if he could develop those and show them against the top AP clubs and international teams.

But lets not forget.......not long ago Twelvetrees was the golden boy of the England centres everyone saying he should be the 12.
After some early criticism he is finally starting to show that he could make a very good international 12 and has been part of an drastically improved England attack. He also has a big size advantage over Eastmond - which shouldnt matter but unfortunately does in this day and age.

Now it will be interesting to see what Eastmond could do in the first test ....but im actually not sure he'll start.

I really like Eastmond from what I have seen, but I havent yet seen anything that would make me pick him instead of 36, if he is available.

It is an interesting situation. We have had lean pickings at 12 for a few years and barring Manu you could say the same about 13 ( not that anyone has had much chance to establish themselves when he is available). Now we have three good to great established centers and potentially a few more in the pipeline.

Reports that Dan Cole is to have surgery on his neck, we always knew he would miss NZ but now it could be longer. So Davey Wilson is now firmly first choice and we desperately need two young THs to step up and challenge him.

Henry Thomas and Kyle Sinkler?

Yes i agree LIW,

We have several genuine options at centre now.

12 - Barritt, (Eastmond)
13 - Tuilagi
Happy at 12 or 13 - Burrell, Twelvetrees

Badger,

I dont like to hear that about Cole. But Leonard came through it strongly, and he has a great team behind him.

Well Henry Thomas has been there along the way, and his move to Bath is only going to help and improve him i would say.

Brookes will continue to improve and get fitter with us...under Dean and Wells watch and guidance.
Sinkler has been pulling up trees in the latter part of the season.
Then further behind you have Scott Wilson and a few others coming through.

Sarries have a young lad in the England u20 squad who looks a right powerhouse aswell, and just coming up with little fuss.

We have options.

GF, we definitely have a lot of options it seems. Our two back ups need to get some game-time but it's tricky to do that gradually, though in fairness to SL he seems to do ok at introducing talent from the bench.

Is any one else living in a state of elation/fear of the current crop of English talent coming through? It all seems too good to be true..............

read up on dan cole. All a little bizarre. Told in Feb he needed simply rest, now in May they say, actually surgery with 6 months out. Couldn't they have simply done surgery at the beginning meaning he would have been fit for the new season?

I'm sure they had medical reasons but a little bizarre and perhaps a little obtuse in thought.

I was impressed with Thomas' appearances off the bench during the 6N, so wouldn't mind him being in the match day 23 for NZ at all.

His premiership form hasn't been great admittedly, but he seems to step up for international duty.

I'd really like to see Sinckler against the BaBaas and Crusaders.

bluestonevedder wrote:I was impressed with Thomas' appearances off the bench during the 6N, so wouldn't mind him being in the match day 23 for NZ at all.

His premiership form hasn't been great admittedly, but he seems to step up for international duty.

I'd really like to see Sinckler against the BaBaas and Crusaders.

Surely he's got to shed a few pounds though if he wants to be taken seriously. You can get away with being a lump in club rugby but test rugby requires athletes.

I think as a rule you try to avoid surgery if at all possible, particulary on sensitive areas like the neck. If initially they thought rest would be sufficient to solve the problem, then that's the right call. It appears though that that won't be enough, so they've made the decision to go with the surgery. All seems fairly logical to me.

In tennis, Andy Murray was battling a back problem on and off for the best part of two years before deciding to bit the bullet and have surgery last year for a point of comparison.

fa0019 wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:I was impressed with Thomas' appearances off the bench during the 6N, so wouldn't mind him being in the match day 23 for NZ at all.

His premiership form hasn't been great admittedly, but he seems to step up for international duty.

I'd really like to see Sinckler against the BaBaas and Crusaders.

Surely he's got to shed a few pounds though if he wants to be taken seriously. You can get away with being a lump in club rugby but test rugby requires athletes.

I'm guessing you're talking about Sinckler?

He's certainly a big old boy, but I was surprised by his turn of speed against Bath when he charged down the wing and smashed the receiver!

bluestonevedder wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:I was impressed with Thomas' appearances off the bench during the 6N, so wouldn't mind him being in the match day 23 for NZ at all.

His premiership form hasn't been great admittedly, but he seems to step up for international duty.

I'd really like to see Sinckler against the BaBaas and Crusaders.

Surely he's got to shed a few pounds though if he wants to be taken seriously. You can get away with being a lump in club rugby but test rugby requires athletes.

I'm guessing you're talking about Sinckler?

He's certainly a big old boy, but I was surprised by his turn of speed against Bath when he charged down the wing and smashed the receiver!

Thomas... he's the tighthead right? Looks like he turned to the doughnut diet to put on those extra Ibs required for front row work. Difficult for young chaps I agree, they need to get big but it takes time unless your name is Coenie Oosthuizen that is... 6'1 and 130kg of toned muscle by the time he was 23.

fa0019 wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:I was impressed with Thomas' appearances off the bench during the 6N, so wouldn't mind him being in the match day 23 for NZ at all.

His premiership form hasn't been great admittedly, but he seems to step up for international duty.

I'd really like to see Sinckler against the BaBaas and Crusaders.

Surely he's got to shed a few pounds though if he wants to be taken seriously. You can get away with being a lump in club rugby but test rugby requires athletes.

Well people are calling for Steffon Armitage? Who seemingly wins player of the year at will over in France and is looked on like a god by most fans.

Now he's hardly your stereotypical athlete...but by god hes fit. Likewise Basteraud aint your athletic build.

Walrdom at Leicester was a very over weight but was consitantly one of the fittest in the club.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:I was impressed with Thomas' appearances off the bench during the 6N, so wouldn't mind him being in the match day 23 for NZ at all.

His premiership form hasn't been great admittedly, but he seems to step up for international duty.

I'd really like to see Sinckler against the BaBaas and Crusaders.

Surely he's got to shed a few pounds though if he wants to be taken seriously. You can get away with being a lump in club rugby but test rugby requires athletes.

Well people are calling for Steffon Armitage? Who seemingly wins player of the year at will over in France and is looked on like a god by most fans.

Now he's hardly your stereotypical athlete...but by god hes fit. Likewise Basteraud aint your athletic build.

Walrdom at Leicester was a very over weight but was consitantly one of the fittest in the club.

the difference is that despite his apparent fitness on visual inspection, Armitage is a supreme athlete and gets around the park better than near all competitors.

Thomas on the other hand (from my own limited test match views I admit) looks a little off the pace for a test match player. I.e. he gets around as much as you would expect... not much

fa0019 wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:I was impressed with Thomas' appearances off the bench during the 6N, so wouldn't mind him being in the match day 23 for NZ at all.

His premiership form hasn't been great admittedly, but he seems to step up for international duty.

I'd really like to see Sinckler against the BaBaas and Crusaders.

Surely he's got to shed a few pounds though if he wants to be taken seriously. You can get away with being a lump in club rugby but test rugby requires athletes.

I'm guessing you're talking about Sinckler?

He's certainly a big old boy, but I was surprised by his turn of speed against Bath when he charged down the wing and smashed the receiver!

Thomas... he's the tighthead right? Looks like he turned to the doughnut diet to put on those extra Ibs required for front row work. Difficult for young chaps I agree, they need to get big but it takes time unless your name is Coenie Oosthuizen that is... 6'1 and 130kg of toned muscle by the time he was 23.

Oh sorry mate, I assumed you meant Sinckler. Yeh Thomas looks a little rotund, though Oosthuizen aside, I don't think there are too many tightheads who aren't a little more chunky than they should be...?

Thomas also hasn't been playing as much for Sale. Diamond has been particularly scathing of him too. Maybe he's fallen into a whirlwind of despair that only food can resolve.

I thought you mean Sinkler aswell, who incidently i think looks a better prospect than Thomas due to his far superior scrummaging.

Thomas fitness is just fine. His strengths are in the loose very much like Marlers was. Hence why he should become a much more serious prospect when Baths forward coaches get to grips with his scrummaging.

Sinckler was apparently a fullback as a schoolboy, and has been playing 60-80 minutes over the last two months. No question about fitness there

Beating the Wasps drum, it is worth SL taking a look at Jake Cooper-Woolley at th. He's had a fantastic season at scrum time and in the loose.

His problem is he hasn't been around the England set up at all. Mainly because he came to pro rugby late, having gone to uni at UWIC and played for them and Bedwas in Wales.

Why is Thomas moving to Bath? Maybe not the right place to ask this question, but I don't think it's a good move for him. He'll be sitting behind Wilson, and the only starts he'll get are when Wilson is on international duty, but only if he's not called up? So either he gets dropped from England or gets very limited game-time next season.

If Eastmond isn't in the 1st test 23 then I fully expect him to go back to league.

If 36 is fit and starting, then I'd even consider starting Eastmond instead of May as he has played wing for Bath.

SL needs to make the decision now, Baa Bas or versus the Crusaders is simply a waste of time - he's either part of the plan or not - all this 'is he isn't he' development rubbish is a waste of everybody's, especially Eastmond's, time and career.

I believe he has abundent talent and is a big game player, bigger the stage bigger the performance and I think Bath have failed to fully realise his ability and will probably continue to do so with Ford the Daddy in charge.

fa0019 wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:I was impressed with Thomas' appearances off the bench during the 6N, so wouldn't mind him being in the match day 23 for NZ at all.

His premiership form hasn't been great admittedly, but he seems to step up for international duty.

I'd really like to see Sinckler against the BaBaas and Crusaders.

Surely he's got to shed a few pounds though if he wants to be taken seriously. You can get away with being a lump in club rugby but test rugby requires athletes.

Sinckler has been playing long games and has real pace. He's not ready for test rugby yet but that's not because he needs to slim down

kingelderfield wrote:If Eastmond isn't in the 1st test 23 then I fully expect him to go back to league.

If 36 is fit and starting, then I'd even consider starting Eastmond instead of May as he has played wing for Bath.

SL needs to make the decision now, Baa bas or versus the Crusaders is simply a waste of time - he's either part of the plan or forget not - all this is he isn't he development rubbish is a waste of everybody's especially Eastmond time and career.

I believe he has abundent talent and is a big game player, bigger the stage bigger the performance and I think Bath have failed to fully realise is ability and will probably continue to do so with Daddy in charge.

We'll take him

ChequeredJersey wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:I was impressed with Thomas' appearances off the bench during the 6N, so wouldn't mind him being in the match day 23 for NZ at all.

His premiership form hasn't been great admittedly, but he seems to step up for international duty.

I'd really like to see Sinckler against the BaBaas and Crusaders.

Surely he's got to shed a few pounds though if he wants to be taken seriously. You can get away with being a lump in club rugby but test rugby requires athletes.

Sinckler has been playing long games and has real pace. He's not ready for test rugby yet but that's not because he needs to slim down

Ready or not, he might be about to experience it. I really hope he and Collier get to tour, because 6 weeks with Wig will really accelerate their development. Given that Cole will be out for longer than expected, England will need to develop a backup for Wilson just in case. Whoever it is will be thrown in at the deep-end and of the obvious candidates Sinckler looks to be the fastest learner.

Change of tack;

We've all focussed on the players situations; injuries, form and abilities, however I think this tour will tell us a lot about where our coaching panel is and specifically where Lancaster is in his development as a selector and strategic player.

I don't really count last years Argentinian tour due to the quality of opposition, so for comparison I think you need to go back to South Africa 2012 where we were taught a lesson in physicality which Lancaster chose to ignore until Wales kicked our backsides good and proper.

Lessons have hopefully been learnt in a number of area's; appropiate positional selection, selection on form and ability over loyalty and the need for balance between defence and attack with the courage to play with ball in hand and to execute the opportunities that patience can provide.

All this is now in the melting pot and with the unique opportunity before us it will be very interesting to see how the coaches and primarily Lancaster perform?