Doing the inventory: England

First topic message reminder :

Doing the inventory: England

Edit: I will update with backs when I have time. This took longer than expected.

Hey guys,
 
This page is for discussing the England team and set up ahead of the run in to the RWC and please please add your comments whichever team you support. Also please feel free to add your own "inventories" for your own national teams for comparison's sake. It's very interesting to see other teams from their fans' points of view and also those Same fans' opinions on our team!

There is a lot of debate over what England's best side is, what players we have available and what needs to be sorted before the World Cup. As we are 1 year out in terms of competitive domestic and international play, I thought it would be great to go through every position and do a stock check of our current, RWC and future prospects there, highlighting our likely squad and first team as well as our strengths and weaknesses. This is all my own opinion so please feel free to add yours or correct me if I have stated something factually incorrect.


LH- this is indubitably an area of strength. Already ready for England we have Lions Alex Corbisiero (great scrummager, but injury concern, when fit has impressed hugely and looks potentially a world class player) and Mako Vunipola (had some issues recently in the scrum but young, improving and a devastating carrier, a real impact sub to use against weaker scrummaging nations), not to mention new Quins captain and one of the most improved international players last year, Joe Marler (hugely better in the scrum under the new laws, offers a lot in terms of work rate but seems to have lost the ball playing and running that originally won him plaudits at club level). The RWC squad will have all 3 in, which starting is hard to say and probably depends on Corbs' knees.

Behind these 3, we have several players who could step in at this moment in time and a good looking future.

Gloucester's Wood was once highly vaunted but appears to have lost a lot of form. Matt Mullan has played for England and has the work in the loose and solid set piece to be a good 4th choice. Alex Waller looked great last season for Saints and if Corbs isn't fit he will get a chance to shine again- he's also young and will get capped in my opinion. His brother Ethan looks promising (though possibly will move to tight head). Barrington has potential though probably not enough to get capped, and Balmain with his ability to play both sides of te scrum surely has a strong future. Nathan Catt is another I could see doing a job if needed and has a good future. Interestingly my searches reveal that Sale have a Moldovan prop, good to see less known rugby nations have players at this level!

All in all, I think we can say Marler, Corbs and Vunipola are tier one (all int class, one top int class and one possibly world class), with Catt, Mullan and Waller behind and Balmain possibly the future. Here we are strong

Hooker- hooker has been an area of huge worry for years, but we seem to be strong here right now. Established options are Hartley (in form, an exceptional player though with a tendency to pop up in the scrum and recent indiscretions, also adds leadership), Webber (looks in form, partnership with Wilson, has taken his chances well) and Lion Tom Youngs (worries re his size, hooking and throwing! But can get the throwing perfectly when in a groove, great at carrying and the breakdown, adds a dimension to our dynamic pack).

Behind these players, we have Paice, who doesn't impress me, George who needs gametime but has huge promise especially in tight carrying for Sarries (he can learn from literally the best in the premiership) and 3 players for Quins. Joe Gray is technically excellent but small and injury prone. Buchanan is powerful and a carrier but raw. Ward is a turnover and ripping machine with a backrow's linkman skills and a centre's pace but has awful days at the lineout and is also small. Any would be ok for me filling in as 4th for England.

Cowan Dickie, once a prop, has lots of potential but needs another season in the shirt for Exeter. Lindsay of Wasps has fallen off his huge potential and I can only hope he springs back.

Overall, Hartley, Webber and Youngs are a good trio, Ward and Gray are good backup and with LCD and George the future looks bright too, certainly better than a few years ago.

TH- this is a tricky area for every team. Currently Dan Cole is injured and was in poor form, but he has been a top level international TH with experience, good technique and an exceptional man in the breakdown. Dave Wilson has filled in nicely for him. Thomas doesn't not convince me hugely as 3rd choice but his cameos have been ok, and he should improve his scrummaging at Bath though may also lose his place playing regularly in the premiership behind Wilson.

We have mentioned Ethan Waller as one for the future. Jake Cooper Wooley of Wasps, who started as a LH is another. Harden and Knight have struggled in a weak Gloucester pack. This looks improved next seasons but this might stop them from getting gametime. Newcastle offer one for the present, the impressive Kieron Brookes, and the future with the raw but talented Wilson. Quins' PDJ looks a spent force but Sinckler looks certain for a cap with his quick learning and strong, pacey carrying. Collier is another Quins option maybe a little less talented but closer to ready.

Cole and Wilson, in uncertain order, will play. The 3rd choice is more open, Thomas could keep it but I see Brookes or Collier leapfrogging him. In the future, we should be ok with JCW, Sinckler and "little" Wilson.

Locks- lots of debate over our starting duo. For me it is still Lawes (much improved over the last season, and fulfilling his potential at last, with soft hands and athleticism) and Launchbury (essentially an extra flanker as well as a lock), closely followed by Attwood to add a power option and Parling for his experience and lineout skills. I can see the argument to start Launchbury with whichever of the above had his club mate at hooker, but as this will be Hartley that changes nothing.

Saracens' Botha has caps and though shouldn't be near starting would not let England down in a crisis. Same goes for Robson of Quins, and Day of Saints is very underrated. None are particularly exciting though. Tigers have a blessing of riches here, with Slater (also a 6) very promising and IMO next in line, but Kitchener also highly rated for a different sort of lock. Deacon's time is last but he would still be acceptable if needed. George Skivington is IMO very underrated and is a player I'd like to see get a chance though I suspect he won't. Schofield is unlikely to add to his caps. Palmer is too old but could step in if in dire need, and Savage looks a good player with a potential cap for me.


For the future, though Launch is young, Matthews has yet to fulfil his promise but looks on track after the end of last seasons for Quins. Will Carrick Smlth is a monster that I know little else about. Stookes has potential as does George Kruis, but Dom Barrow possibly has the most of all, and Itoje in the longer term looks a certain cap.


I'd say Launch + Lawes, Parling and Attwood followed by Kitchener and Slater, with Kruis and Barrow as the future.

6- an interesting Position with many roles. Tom Wood is an excellent 6 who works with our 7, and a good leader. Behind him, James Haskell finally looks the real deal. Tom Johnson is solid but unexceptional, an option certainly.

Callum Clarke is loved by Lancaster but not by some fans. I think he had a great season last year but is not the player to bring England forward. Matt Garvey is NOT loved by Lancaster but is exactly te option at 6 or lock we could do with. In his absence (we assume), Slater could fill in at 6. Kruis is a decent 6 but a better lock, and Wray is good but not enough to cap. If Croft can come back well from injury and stay fit he adds something no other englAnd forward can (real attacking running and a great lineout) and is a shoe in for the squad, lack of physicality or not. Gibson has also looked very good for Tigers and deserves a shot at some point but also lacks power. Tom Guest is too old now to get his first cap realistically much to my dismay. Gaskell frankly doesn't impress me much at all. Welch and Wilson at Falcons look good players but unlikely to feature. Carl Fearns adds power and isn't shabby at the breakdown and should be considered too.

In terms of the future, Charlie Blair Walker is an exciting player, and S Jones will surely get capped at 6 or 7, otherwise I struggle to see many young but not academy players in this position. Moriarity could break through if his pack gives him the platform.

7- here Robshaw stands alone with Armitage in exile. Armitage's carrying and scavenging would be useful but not enough to set a dangerous precedent. Robshaw is a jack of all trades, master of all trades though sadly I expect him to go underrated his entire career. After him comes Kvesic who has had good spells, and offers a blend of breakdown and tackling but had a poor season at Gloucester. He will hope his new-look pack can help him out because he is talented.

At Saints, Clarke and wood can play 7. Dowson didn't look up to int level at all. Will Fraser has genuine talent and I hope he can stay fit as he is both present and future. Luke Wallace will get gametime at 6 and when Robshaw is away. He's a great ball player and fetcher but easily caught out of position. Scaysborough is a solid 7 but unlikely to get a look in, and the same applies for Betty, Seymour and Lund. Guy Thompson impresses me as a utility back row but not enough, Rowan looks an option for the future.  Andy Saull seems to have fallen off the horizon, and I can't see him fighting back in.


I think Wood, Haskell and Robshaw are certains here. After that it becomes hard. Slater can play 6. I would love Garvey but doubt we'll see him. After that, Fraser and Kvesic and maybe Wallace at 7 (Rowan and Jones future options) and Fearns, Gibson and Croft at 6 (Kruis and Moriarity maybe the future here). I thought we'd be stronger than we are at flanker.

8- in Billy Vunipola and Morgan we have 2 great options at 8, both powerful though with different carrying specialties. Haskell adds extra cover here too.

After these two, we are better here than I thought. Dickinson is solid. Easter is old but could fill in come the RWC in his current state (ie phenomenal). Crane is back on track with Waldrom ( no thanks) gone. Jack Clifford is the future. Fearns can play here and Burgess may be trialled here. Guest is getting on but good enough, ditto Narraway, York has fallen off the radar. And Ewers is raw but talented.


I would say Billy and Morgan helped by Haskell, with Ewers next, maybe Crane and Easter in an emergency. Clifford for the future, plus Billy will be playing for years to come.



So that gives a pack of

Marler, Corbs, Vunipola
Youngs, Hartley, Webber
Cole, Wilson, Brookes
Lawes,Launchbury, Parling, Attwood
Wood, Haskell, Croft
Robshaw, Fraser
Vunipola, Morgan


The backs:

England's backs have long been seen as an issue- with a dearth of flair, and thanks to the likes of Andy Robinson, a graveyard where the careers of promising young tyros chucked in the deep end go to die (I will never forgive the way he ruined Tait and Allen). However, a few key issues aside, I honestly feel we are stronger than most realise here and certainly stronger than any time in the past 10 years, a few fantastic players from that period aside.


9- not long ago, with Care lacking consistency and maturity and Youngs falling out of form, this was a big worry. However, Care seems to have grown into the player he should have been, fantastic for Quins, bringing that form to England and improving his pass, kick and mind to go with his high tempo and playmaking. Similarly, Youngs looked to be refinding his form at the end of last season and looking like the player we thought could be the best 9 in the world. Behind them, Lee Dickson isn't very exciting but he is solid enough for England and had a great season for Saints.

Behind these 3, Wrigglesworth is not a particularly flashy choice but he is an excellent tactical 9 and I would happily see him play in white. His club mate Spencer looks a long term option, with a similarly good kicking game. Joel Hodgson has gone down the pecking order by moving to Saints but with his skillset and 2 good 9s to learn from is another to watch out for. I don't know much about Harrison, but Karl Dickson at Quins is a solid player who could fill in if needed (not on last season's form though) and Burns and Stuart are ones to watch but need to add cleverness to their pace. Chiefs have 3 solid 9s in Lewis, Chudley and Thomas though I don't know enough about them to say if they could get caps. I don't hugely rate Young but Cook at Bath looks promising and Robson at Glaws too though he'll need to get ahead of Laidlaw, who I think is a silly buy for the club. Simpson offers a lot but also has too many flaws (like his pass...) for me to pick him for England.

Here we can easily say care, Youngs and Dickson, IMO followed by Wriggles and with Cook, Robson and Spencer my picks for the future.


10- more contentious here. Farrell, with his kicking and defence, is clearly the favourite here and has improved his attack but is still never going to be a Spencer or Larkham, and there are rumours he might be tried at 12 in the AIs. Behind him, it's a close 3 way race with Flood taking himself out of the picture. Burns had an awful season, but promises so much in terms of attack and using his backs, and if he can get ahead of Williams he will have a better platform at Tigers. Cipriani has lost the unplayable verve he once had but has also improved his temperament, defence and control and frankly looks the most balanced 10 we have in my eyes, whether he is trusted by others is another question. Ford has shown great tactical kicking and passing but poor goal kicking and is rather small for international rugby. Picking our 10s is key and is a real challenge.

Behind these players, Myler is solid. Hodgson has retired but Goode looked good in his cameos at 10 for Sarries and some have questioned the decision to ever move him from 10 to 15. Billy Burns is too young now but looks even better than his brother and Slade also looks a top quality player. Andy Goode is too old, and Geraghty seems to have fallen off the track that saw him shine so brightly in that one 6N campaign. Clegg too seems to have lost his touch and gone from flakey but a good attacker at Quins to a kicker with no flair at Falcons. I've heard good things about young Joe Ford. Barkley is past it IMO.

Farrell plus 2 of Cips, Ford and Burns, probably Ford and Burns though I think that's not the best call. For the future, mini Burns and Slade look most promising.


12- our biggest problem. Twelvetrees has looked great in spells but subpar in others. Eastmond with the opportunity to attack also looks class but was found massively defensively lacking in t3 in NZ. Burrell can play 12 but with Manu at 13? Can Manu play 12? Farrell? No easy decision here. Barritt has been a stalwart when given the chance but with Farrell at 10 and Manu at 13, that attack just seems far too blunt.


After the current squad members, there are other options. I hugely rate Allen and think he really does deserve another chance (damn you Robinson!). He has the passing (though his role for Tigers doesn't use it that often), the running lines and the defensive leadership to be what we need. However, it looks too late for Allen as he would have been picked before now were it to happen. Chris Bell is another solid clubman who I doubt raises enough pulses to get a chance. Burgess could come in at 12 but until he plays a minute of Union there is no way I can see him playing for England. Devoto looks a future star though. I don't know much about Guy Armitage at all, I'm sure Pete can enlighten me. Sam Hill I have seen and he impresses me a lot. Casson has lost a lot of form for Quins and whilst a fit JTH is vital for us and should have the power and offload to do well for England, his few caps didn't exactly inspire. And he's never ever fit. May at Welsh is ok but not an int. The last centre who springs to mind is Stephenson, for the future at least.


12 is hard but let's stick with 36 and Eastmond, with Burrell predominantly a 13 but an option. I'd love to see Allen there but we won't. For the future, Stephenson and Hill for me but I wouldn't be surprised or upset to see Devoto there.

13- Manu Tuilagi is, for his flaws (that strangely seem to materialise for England- he passes well at Tigers), a lethal player who must be in the squad. He made Conrad Smith look like a schoolboy. Burrell was poor in NZ but had a storming 6N and deserves to be there too.

After this, it becomes harder. Bath's Devoto could play 13, and hopefully Banahan is a no. Joseph looked promising but has dropped off. Tompkins is another for the future, and Tomkins didn't look international class when given the chance and I think is back in league. Can't see Waldouck making it either. Quins have some talented young centres in Sloan (probably won't make it) and Marchant (could do in the future, but very young) and Hopper impresses some. He's too flakey for me and Lowe, if he reaches his previous form from before this horrible injury, is a real possibility, underrated in attack and defence. Daly has IMO all the weapons to play 13 and hopefully will start there and not at 15 for Wasps. Trinder is another good player but needs to stay fit. The others at Falcons etc don't look like options to me.

So manu and Burrell then. I'd have Lowe and Daly next, then Daly, Tompkins and Devoto as the future.

Wing- we have had issues here but I actually think the options are good and varied. We are just low on time to pick them properly. Yarde, now playing with Brown at Quins, has nailed one shirt down with his attack. The other main contenders are Ashton, who had a good club season but may have run out of lives, May, who can't seem to run straight and fulfill his promise, Nowell, who improved through the 6N but doesn't score many tries (adds a lot else though, similar to Watson, another option) and Wade who is untested thanks to injury but looks magic to me and must get a run out frankly. Then FBs like Foden are also in the mix.

Saints also have Elliott, who is understated and does his basics very well. I think he could do well alla Cueto, who himself is too old now days. Thompstone doesn't quite look up to this level and Benjamin needs to prove he is still the player he looked before injury. Strettle does it all at club level but has struggled for England. Williams will never get capped after the B word, Monye has lost his pace but Charlie Walker looks like he might be a future England winger with his pace and ability to play 13 and 15. Arnott and Jess aren't quite there, neither is Brady. Cato hasn't fulfilled his potential but Kiribirige looks the real deal for Falcons in a few years. Ojo has missed the boat, and Lewington looks good but not great (don't know how James Short has been doing at Irish, looked good at Sarries). Sharples has fallen from favour but is still a great attacker if we need more in attack, JSD is too old now. Woodburn is quick but I don't know much about him. Can't see Banahan getting another chance, and Rocky is on the list for the Saxons but I think unlikely to make the full step up. Earle looks lethal as a future winger. Stegmann and Sam Smith are too flawed in defence without the pure danger to counter this. Finally Varndell is a long shot but still a menace to defences at AP level.


I'd go with Yarde and Wade, with Watson, Nowell and May as back ups for now.

All are young but other youngsters to step up are Earle, Walker and Kiribirige.


15- Mike Brown has the shirt if he can approach his AI and 6N form of last year when he was possibly the best in the World. Behind him Foden is proven int class but in my eyes has never neared his form of 3-4 years ago. Goode needs pace outside him but adds a dimension to how England can play. And May, daly, Nowell, Watson can all play FB too. It is a global area of strength and every club has an option here.

With Abendanon leaving and Watson a winger, Bath can offer the solid Luke Arscott. Gloucester have lost (once England vaunted) Olly Morgan but Cook looks promising at 15. Wasps now have the decent option of Miller if Daly (please!!!) stays at 13. Irish have Homer, who i see mostly as a kicker. Catterick and Tait probably not good enough at Falcons. Tom Arscott very underrated and wouldn't be too out of place. Chiefs will probably start Nowell at 15. Sarries have Goode but Ransom is ok too, and Welsh have some players I don't really know much about. Pennell, loyally staying at Wuss despite being in the NZ tour squad, is utterly class and I hope he gets to come back up. After MB for Quins is Chisholm who is dangerously pacy (but has been injured a fair bit) and OLH who wants to play 15s like it's 7s. Matt Tait is looking like the player e could have been if not for Robinson and injuries again but is still made of the same glass as Warburton and Pocock.

FBs have to be Brown, Foden, Goode, with the wingers as back ups and maybe Pennell if he goes on loan. For the future, Cook, maybe Earle and Watson look grand.


So all in all the backs look like:

Care, Youngs
Farrell, Burns,
Twelvetrees, (Eastmond)
Manu, Burrell,
Wade, Yarde, Watson (Nowell, May)
Brown, Goode, Foden

I'll comment on the overall situation, plan etc tomorrow.

I'm afraid your post has only piqued my interest RDW. Who was Itchy then?   

As I said - keep this out of the public forum. If you have any questions then PM me!

My apologies.   

Getting back on thread, it seems to me that England's strength in the forwards is a real advantage. In the modern game, you need replacements who can step up and do the job required. My only misgivings is the balance of the back row. There seems an element missing.

In the backs, there are probably just as many candidates as the forwards. But the missing elements seem more apparent. The problem is who can fill the spaces inside and outside Tuilagi on attack and what is the best combination of defensive solidity without compromising the attack.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:My apologies.   

Getting back on thread, it seems to me that England's strength in the forwards is a real advantage. In the modern game, you need replacements who can step up and do the job required. My only misgivings is the balance of the back row. There seems an element missing.

In the backs, there are probably just as many candidates as the forwards. But the missing elements seem more apparent. The problem is who can fill the spaces inside and outside Tuilagi on attack and what is the best combination of defensive solidity without compromising the attack.

This is the key, I never beleive in player loyalty to a point where the team suffers, so am pretty ruthless, but despite my opinion on dropping Brown for a lesser player, but better option, his form is superb. He is an allrounder that England have needed, as much as I like Foden being 1 dimensional on the international stage killed England.

But again I don't think the selections will matter, what will matter is that they are made and the convictions are stuck with, there are so many high quality players in England selection becomes less important and continuity becomes more so. Countries like Wales and Scotland have few selection dillemmas, but in Wales case it has helped massively.

Neutralee wrote:Countries like Wales and Scotland have few selection dillemmas, but in Wales case it has helped massively.

That is indeed true, although it did not stop Hadden, Robinson and Johnson still finding a way of picking players out of position. Our depth has been a massive issue in recent times, with no better example than young Adam Ashe in the summer facing the Springboks on home turf despite not having completed 80 minutes of professional rugby. I cannot imagine any other established rugby nation being in that position.

Still, as England fans can testify, merely having loads of players neither equates to depth nor does it guarantee a strong 1st XV. In that regard I believe Scotland is moving in the right direction, albeit slowly. Our 1st XV is better than it has been for years, and we even have the potential for a few decent impact subs on the bench. We still have virtually nothing in the way of depth, but with Cotter in charge of the 1st XV and Toonie and Solomons running Glasgow and Edinburgh, I do at least feel like we have a shot at maximising our resources, provided Scott Johnson stays well away from the players.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: He makes valid points Cyril. SL had Brown on the wing but injury forced his hand and he discovered Brown looked better at 15. For all his flawlessness during the 6N, he was more a support runner running off the loose forwards or halfback. He was also a very good returner of the ball breaking tackles and linking up with his forward team mates. Add that to his aerial skills and defensive awareness and he provided England with stability and, therefore, a solid platform to work off inside their own half.

However, for all his obvious strengths, he does not possess the ability to enter the line like Folau, Le Roux or Dagg or Smith. So a player like Tuilagi and he do not combine well. He is not that type of attacking player. So keeping those two players in the backline, who becomes or is the player for England to get beyond the defensive line after it is broken. Ashton and Burrell have been tried in combination inside and outside but it has worked and it hasn't. Yarde has been effective at breaking the one but not in combination with Tuilagi. The problem may be seen as being inside 13 but to me it's finding a player up through the middle or outside Tuilagi that England need to find.

So in essence...are you saying Tuilagi is the problem.
Maybe Lancaster sees that also and was another reason for the trial on the wing?

Should we play Burrell at 13 and find another 12?

I have a feeling that after the WC Brown wont be the 15 imcumbant anyway...and whilst this might puzzle people....id put my bets on Nowell.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:My apologies.   

Getting back on thread, it seems to me that England's strength in the forwards is a real advantage. In the modern game, you need replacements who can step up and do the job required. My only misgivings is the balance of the back row. There seems an element missing.

In the backs, there are probably just as many candidates as the forwards. But the missing elements seem more apparent. The problem is who can fill the spaces inside and outside Tuilagi on attack and what is the best combination of defensive solidity without compromising the attack.

I agree. We currently play a more left and right flanker rather than blindside and openside. I believe this is actually hampering us...(very good ) jack of all trades...master of none...so to speak.

My money would be on Anthony Watson coming through rather than Nowell. That guy can really glide past defenders and has that Cullen-esque quality of not looking like he's motoring and yet no-one is keeping up. He's still raw, but I reckon he has the most potential of all the young pretenders at fullback.

Watson, Wade and Yarde. Now that's a back three.

FES, having spent a fair bit of my childhood in Scotland I like to keep an eye on them.  When I was scouting about I noticed some famous old names,  seeing Ben Chalmers and Adam Hastings took me back.  Is there much expectation in Scotland for these lads?  How are they developing?


http://www.scottishrugby.org/scotland-u18/player/adam-hastings

http://www.scottishrugby.org/scotland-u20/player/ben-chalmers

Good write up kia .. couple of comments below

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Well as CJ has asked for other nations' inventories I thought I might have a crack with NZ's.

Hookers: Coles, Mealamu, Matu'u, NZ's sketchiest position. Coles will only get better at his core requirements to add to his obvious talents in the loose. Mealamu is ideal for calling on in the dying minutes of the game. He is not genuine injury cover though and after that we look a bit threadbare. Coltman may catch the eye with his grizzly bear looks but he is flaky in his lineout throwing and Hika Eliot has not been able to kick on from his promising NZ appearances. I think the next best bet off the line is the Hurricanes hooker Matu'u. However, that is a big ask to step up to that level. The Wallabies have been exposed with injuries to Moore and Polota-Nau and frankly if the same happened to NZ, we'd be in similar strife..

What about the lad Marshall, think he is at Auckland? Looked a talent, has he dropped off a bit or just too soon to think about him for 2015?

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Props. Woodcock is out with a shoulder injury and is due to go under the blade so that's him out for 2014 probably. That might well prolong his shelf life until 2015 and he showed in the 3rd test that he is still a valuable member and contributor. But he is hanging on by a thread. Then we have Crockett who has a much more minor injury and Ben Franks is better suited to TH than LH. Joe Moody is a player who shows a lot of promise and was selected last year but he is ultimately unproven at test level. So another worrying area for NZ is loosehead. Tighthead sees more genuine options. Owen Franks, Charlie Faumuina, Ben Franks, Ben Afeaki and Toomaga-Allen are all options...

Is Big Ben likely to get a look in? Love his game, I assume his fitness is the main reason for his absence though

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Backrow. Here NZ look good with their first choice and a bit shaky in some areas for cover. Read adds both defence and attack as well as speed to the NZ backrow. McCaw may be fading but he is still a tackling machine and has vast experience that is invaluable. Jerome Kaino has made a welcome return and adds steel to the backrow. Messam is genuine cover but looks to have not found the form he had in 2013. Vito is injured but had a great Super season and deserved his recall before he was injured and Luatua made a welcome return to form late in the Super season and hopefully he can make a contribution in the RC if called upon. Hansen puts his faith in Cane ahead of Todd as he is bigger and quicker than him but Luke Braid although injured is also a genuine option there. The problem with Vito out is that there is no genuine cover for Kieran Read and nobody when even fit is quite the player he is. ...

Ardie Savea ...?

Cumbrian wrote:FES, having spent a fair bit of my childhood in Scotland I like to keep an eye on them.  When I was scouting about I noticed some famous old names,  seeing Ben Chalmers and Adam Hastings took me back.  Is there much expectation in Scotland for these lads?  How are they developing?


http://www.scottishrugby.org/scotland-u18/player/adam-hastings

http://www.scottishrugby.org/scotland-u20/player/ben-chalmers

To be honest I couldn't tell you much about these guys having never seen them play, but it does show how small our pool of players is when you see the number of "rugby families" up in Scotland.

That said, if Adam Hastings is anything like Gavin or Scot then he'll be some player.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: He makes valid points Cyril. SL had Brown on the wing but injury forced his hand and he discovered Brown looked better at 15. For all his flawlessness during the 6N, he was more a support runner running off the loose forwards or halfback. He was also a very good returner of the ball breaking tackles and linking up with his forward team mates. Add that to his aerial skills and defensive awareness and he provided England with stability and, therefore, a solid platform to work off inside their own half.

However, for all his obvious strengths, he does not possess the ability to enter the line like Folau, Le Roux or Dagg or Smith. So a player like Tuilagi and he do not combine well. He is not that type of attacking player. So keeping those two players in the backline, who becomes or is the player for England to get beyond the defensive line after it is broken. Ashton and Burrell have been tried in combination inside and outside but it has worked and it hasn't. Yarde has been effective at breaking the one but not in combination with Tuilagi. The problem may be seen as being inside 13 but to me it's finding a player up through the middle or outside Tuilagi that England need to find.

So in essence...are you saying Tuilagi is the problem.
Maybe Lancaster sees that also and was another reason for the trial on the wing?

Should we play Burrell at 13 and find another 12?

I have a feeling that after the WC Brown wont be the 15 imcumbant anyway...and whilst this might puzzle people....id put my bets on Nowell.

I'd largely agree with you on Nowell, he looks the real deal.

GF As mentioned on the previous page, if you were to choose an English back to persist with, it'd be Tuilagi. He has his flaws but he has many more strengths. Twelvetrees has not worked in combination with him so far. Yarde didn't seem to combine well with him in NZ and Brown is not a player comfortable with entering the line. So who could work well with him? Burrell inside and Nowell or Goode at fullback and then it's a matter of getting the 14 or 11 in synch with what he's doing.

To add to this combination problem though, I think SL recognises that his most consistent player in the 6N was Mike Brown. There's a similar problem in NZ. Ben Smith is in rich form. Dagg was injured and he played at fullback and NZ looked good with him there. He scored 5 tries in the first two RC tests last year at right wing. So where do you play the guy and are you prepared to dump a player who has performed for you in the past?

Sometimes you have to make choices that may not be the best in terms of individual selections but work out in the interests of the team. SL has many workable combinations. The question is who is indispensable in that English backline and who works best in combination around that player? That might well mean compromising yourself in one position to make advances as a team. The back row and back three should not be selected in terms of who the best individual players are but who the best combinations are. The problem is you can only truly find your best combinations when you give them game time together.

BamBam think you mean Rhys Marshall the Chiefs hooker. Has moved ahead of Hika Eliot. Definitely one for the future but I'd fit him in the Ardie Savea bracket. These guys are young and need more game time under their belt. Ben Franks moved away from the Crusaders to move out of the shadow of his brother. Still think he's not as accomplished but he's definitely a great player to call on if need be and he has the test experience.

I'm no expert on NZ rugby but a back three of Dagg (15), Savea (11) and Ben Smith (14) looks pretty devastating to me.

I agree on Tuilagi though. He should be at 13 and Lancaster should build the side around him. I suspect the next experiment will be to try Tuilagi and Burrell together in the centres. Obviously pros and cons to that, and as Neutralee says, it may mean benching Farrell and Brown to allow either Ford, Burns or Cipriani in at 10 and Goode at 15, for the sake of balance. Worth a go I'd suggest. I also wouldn't ditch Eastmond either. I realise he was exposed by the ABs in the 3rd Test, but you can't blame him entirely for the lack of defensive shape. That the ABs had such good go forward and momentum was not his fault.

kiakahaatorea strangely enough I have to defend Twelvetrees. I don't think any centre has synced well with Manu Tuilagi so I don't think we can hold that against 36.

Manu is a very talented player but he's one of those players who doesn't seem to have gelled well with the rest of the England team under Lancaster IMO. He's done it on occasions like vs NZ where he was utterly brilliant and linked with both Barritt and Ashton well but he's not done it enough.

It's weird to think that 36-Barritt, 36-Burrell have been better centre partnerships IMO than Tuilagi with anyone. Tuilagi's success IMO has come from his natural talent but he needs to do more to help out his team mates.

Good combinations/partnerships are arguably more important. If Tuilagi is going to stay a 13 option he must find a natural partner - Barritt didn't suit him, I don't think 36 does. Burrell? Who knows?

We saw in the 6 nations that the combo of Care/Farrell worked at 9/10.

Brown linked up well with the likes of Farrell,Burrell and Care.


Burrell is a player I feel that has linked up well with his team mates. I would definitely have him starting. As for Twelvetrees? I don't know but he needs a big season.

Nowell and May didn't link up well with the other England backs during the 6 nations IMO.

So this is where I think the ? lie -

9.Care
10.Farrell
11.?
12.Burrell
13.?
14.?
15.Brown

Kept these 4 because I thought they were on the same wavelength in the 6 nations.

FES I don't think you can build a backline around one player!

Fes,

If we play Burrell and Tuilagi at 12 and 13 then we need to replace Farrell at 10 and bring in one of Ford, Cips or Burns...or even Slade?

Care cant be the only creative option from 9-13 its asking too much and Farrell isnt good enough in that area (of course i could be proven wrong).

Nowell and May didn't link up well with the other England backs during the 6 nations IMO

Interesting you keep saying this beshocked...May i can agree with but i just dont get your constant criticism of Nowell. I thought he looked fine
.
He does look more like a FB to me..but he did nothing wrong out on the wing and indeed linked well with many of the players...Brown for his try v Scotland (i think it was) for example

please no more talk of Goode at FB. He has had a few games and yes there were two very good performances - one vs Ireland in the rain where his positioning and kicking were first rate, and the one vs NZ where he actually did seem to be doing his job as a second distributor.

Other than that he has been poor. The 'deceptive' pace which actually does seem to work well at club level just doesnt at international and he has no threat ball in hand. I could do without seeing his little hitchkick then run into the nearest defender routine again. His tackling is also not great at all. Foden and Brown are much more powerful players despite looking smaller.

So you are left with an OK kicker who can apparently pass the ball. I know passing the ball used to be a skill beyond half of our players but I would hope things have changed a little (Maybe up to 75%?)

Geordiefalcon you don't know till you try it.

All we know is that in the 6 nations, Farrell inked up well with Care and didn't do too badly with Burrell either.

Creative? What does that even mean? Busting a hole in the opposition defence is creating something - it's a line break.

I think people are over thinking things. If Farrell needs to be more "creative" (less predictable/mix things up) then the coaches need to tell him how to be - e.g. chip over the defence, grubber etc. Mix things up. I have seen Farrell do that - he's just not instructed to do it enough.

The coaches have a responsibility too.

You're right beshocked.

Care Farrell 36 Burrell Brown were on the same wavelength and looked good.

It seems you either give up Brown or you give up Tuilagi. Either seems unpalatable as they are talented players but that's where I think England are at. I just think both together make for a wrong fit.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon you don't know till you try it.

All we know is that in the 6 nations, Farrell inked up well with Care and didn't do too badly with Burrell either.

Creative? What does that even mean? Busting a hole in the opposition defence is creating something - it's a line break.

I think people are over thinking things. If Farrell needs to be more "creative" (less predictable/mix things up) then the coaches need to tell him how to be - e.g. chip over the defence, grubber etc. Mix things up. I have seen Farrell do that - he's just not instructed to do it enough.

The coaches have a responsibility too.

Absolutely unless we try it who knows....

THe 6n's group had potential...ill give it that...Burrell impressed me hugely...but im not impressed with Twelvetrees yet. He needs to show me consistancy and the ability to make things happen.

Yes Farrell needs to mix things up.

What i mean about creativity..is the ability to make things happen. You watch Wales, New Zealand, Australia and they have player who can make one quick play and they are in though and behind us on mass.

We havent yet shown players who can do that, and that we can finish off the moves. Efficiency. Yarde made some good breaks in the NZ Tour...who supported him...No- one.

We need some intelligence in our backs and im not sure we have that.

Yes the coaches have much to answer for...ive been hugely critical of them in their defensive tactics...im becoming more critical of the attack now.

lostinwales to be fair to Goode he's just not an OK kicker - he's probably the best place kicker in the AP. I agree with the rest though hence why I think a switch back to 10 might be an option.

geordiefalcon nothing wrong?  His lack of communication was part of the reason we lost to France. If you play on the wing you are meant to be a try scoring threat - I wouldn't say he was that. Fair enough - yes he had a try assist vs Scotland, Scotland were hardly the strongest team in the competition though....

The best thing you can say is that he did a solid defensive job vs Wales and Ireland - I suppose that counts for something.

His communication?? Oh Beshocked we've argued this so many times. Its boring.

Your golden Boy Goode was not to blame though was he? Surely as the senior experienced player...HE should take charge of the situation over a 19yo playing his first senior international in Paris??

geordiefalcon nothing wrong? His lack of communication was part of the reason we lost to France. If you play on the wing you are meant to be a try scoring threat - I wouldn't say he was that. Fair enough - yes he had a try assist vs Scotland, Scotland were hardly the strongest team in the competition though....

Yet you push for Ashton who has shown no more attacking flair in a White shirt that Nowell did???

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:You're right beshocked.

Care Farrell 36 Burrell Brown were on the same wavelength and looked good.

It seems you either give up Brown or you give up Tuilagi. Either seems unpalatable as they are talented players but that's where I think England are at. I just think both together make for a wrong fit.

I would sacrifice Tuilagi. It's not that I don't rate Tuilagi. He's a very talented player but as I said he doesn't sync well with his team mates for whatever reason. Other centres like Barritt,Burrell and 36 might be less talented but I would say they are better team players.

Part of the reason NZ are so proficient is because their players work well together supporting each other etc.

Brown was basically the posterboy of England in the 6 nations - I think he must be retained.

Ideally I would like Tuilagi to be accomodated but he needs to find a partner that he can link with effectively.

beshocked wrote:lostinwales to be fair to Goode he's just not an OK kicker - he's probably the best place kicker in the AP. I agree with the rest though hence why I think a switch back to 10 might be an option.

geordiefalcon nothing wrong?  His lack of communication was part of the reason we lost to France. If you play on the wing you are meant to be a try scoring threat - I wouldn't say he was that. Fair enough - yes he had a try assist vs Scotland, Scotland were hardly the strongest team in the competition though....

The best thing you can say is that he did a solid defensive job vs Wales and Ireland - I suppose that counts for something.

Goode - yep. The weaknesses he has are much much less of an issue at 10.

Nowell I think has a lot of potential but the lack of experience did show. We shouldnt write him off yet but I think we are a few years away from seeing him at his best. He did make mistakes vs France but he also tackled very well, and does seem to have a great attitude. I wouldnt pick him now unless we have the same kind of injury issues as we had last year, but would not be at all surprised if he was our FB in 2019

GeordieFalcon wrote:His communication?? Oh Beshocked we've argued this so many times. Its boring.

Your golden Boy Goode was not to blame though was he? Surely as the senior experienced player...HE should take charge of the situation over a 19yo playing his first senior international in Paris??

Goode was partly to blame sure but Goode had just come onto the pitch recently and was out of position (think he was though perhaps someone can verify). Plus he's not a player anyone rates (except for perhaps Lancaster and Greenwood).

Oh and I hold Lancaster more responsible than either Nowell and Goode.

lostinwales wrote:

beshocked wrote:lostinwales to be fair to Goode he's just not an OK kicker - he's probably the best place kicker in the AP. I agree with the rest though hence why I think a switch back to 10 might be an option.

geordiefalcon nothing wrong?  His lack of communication was part of the reason we lost to France. If you play on the wing you are meant to be a try scoring threat - I wouldn't say he was that. Fair enough - yes he had a try assist vs Scotland, Scotland were hardly the strongest team in the competition though....

The best thing you can say is that he did a solid defensive job vs Wales and Ireland - I suppose that counts for something.

Goode - yep. The weaknesses he has are much much less of an issue at 10.

Nowell I think has a lot of potential but the lack of experience did show. We shouldnt write him off yet but I think we are a few years away from seeing him at his best. He did make mistakes vs France but he also tackled very well, and does seem to have a great attitude. I wouldnt pick him now unless we have the same kind of injury issues as we had last year, but would not be at all surprised if he was our FB in 2019

Exactly how I feel. I think he's got potential but I feel that Nowell was unfairly thrown into the deep end too early. Especially on the wing when he's clearly not a winger.

lostinwales wrote:

beshocked wrote:lostinwales to be fair to Goode he's just not an OK kicker - he's probably the best place kicker in the AP. I agree with the rest though hence why I think a switch back to 10 might be an option.

geordiefalcon nothing wrong?  His lack of communication was part of the reason we lost to France. If you play on the wing you are meant to be a try scoring threat - I wouldn't say he was that. Fair enough - yes he had a try assist vs Scotland, Scotland were hardly the strongest team in the competition though....

The best thing you can say is that he did a solid defensive job vs Wales and Ireland - I suppose that counts for something.

Goode - yep. The weaknesses he has are much much less of an issue at 10.

Nowell I think has a lot of potential but the lack of experience did show. We shouldnt write him off yet but I think we are a few years away from seeing him at his best. He did make mistakes vs France but he also tackled very well, and does seem to have a great attitude. I wouldnt pick him now unless we have the same kind of injury issues as we had last year, but would not be at all surprised if he was our FB in 2019

I would hope not, as 20 yo lad whos mistakes came in his first senior international in a 6n game in Paris....

He possibly shouldnt have started the game i accept that...had Yarde etc been fit he wouldnt have...but to chastise him as Beshocked has done since the 6n is just wrong.

I expect him to show very well this season in the prem but i do belive he is a FB and could very well make that FB spot his own in a few years time.

beshocked wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:His communication?? Oh Beshocked we've argued this so many times. Its boring.

Your golden Boy Goode was not to blame though was he? Surely as the senior experienced player...HE should take charge of the situation over a 19yo playing his first senior international in Paris??

Goode was partly to blame sure but Goode had just come onto the pitch recently and was out of position (think he was though perhaps someone can verify). Plus he's not a player anyone rates (except for perhaps Lancaster and Greenwood).

Oh and I hold Lancaster more responsible than either Nowell and Goode.

No Goode went to fullback, with Brown shifting to the wing.

For the centre pairing its about getting the combination right (as others have said). I'm no expert on English players but my thoughts around Tuilagi and partner would be that I don't see Tuilagi as a defensive rock who directs the defensive back line. So since he isn't the other guy must be or you'll get too many tries scored against you.

Just to add a dimension to this argument as it's getting s touch stale, I'll offer 3 backlines and which do people think would be:

A) The most threatening
B) The best defencively
C) The most rounded

1/
9 Care
10 Cipriani
11 Ashton
12 Flood
13 Tuilagi
14 Yarde
15 Foden

2/
9 Youngs
10 Farell
11 Nowell
12 12trees
13 Burell
14 may
15 Brown

3/
9 Dickson
10 Ford
11 Strettle
12 Burns
13 Barrit
14 Wade
15 Goode

I shudder at some of those backlines... 

Flood or Burns at 12??  

10 Ford, 12 Burns....even more   

Neutralee it's flawed when you have two fly halves at 12. Plus I can't say I like any of them above others.

Though I will do my own:

Best defensively -

9.Dickson
10.Farrell
11.Nowell
12.Barritt
13.Burrell
14.Brown
15.Foden

Most attacking

9.Care
10.Cipriani
11.Yarde
12.Eastmond/Burrell
13.Tuilagi
14.Wade
15.Brown

Most rounded

9.Care
10.Farrell
11.Yarde
12.Twelvetrees
13.Burrell
14.Wade
15.Brown

Wildcard backline

9.Care
10.Goode (Alex)
11.Yarde
12.Eastmond
13.Tuilagi
14.Wade
15.Brown

Well Beshocked,

Can we play your best attacking, with Burrell and Burns at 10 instead of Cips please.

Defeats the purpose when you have Brown and Care in every team.

I'm talking head to heads, put each backline up against each other.

Neutralee it's pointless when you have 2 10s at centre though.

Probably have to be 2/ based on actually having a centre at 12!

Ok my effort:

Best Defensive
9 Wigglesworth
10 Farrell
11 Nowell
12 Barritt
13 Burrell
14 Foden
15 Brown

Best Attacking
9 Care
10 Ford
11 Varndell / Yarde
12 Eastmond
13 Tuilagi
14 Wade
15 Watson

Best All Rounder
9 Care
10 Farrell
11 Foden
12 Burrell
13 Tuilagi
14 Yarde
15 Brown

Wildcard
9 Care
10 Slade
11 Earle
12 HIll
13 Tompkins
14 Kibirige
15 Watson

beshocked wrote:Neutralee it's pointless when you have 2 10s at centre though.

Probably have to be 2/ based on actually having a centre at 12!

Because international fly halfs can't play inside centre... I seem to remember Flood doing it pretty decently!

I'm not debating the positional abilities anyway, the idea is to pit 3 backlines against each other to find out who is the weakness and strength.

And now we're all just listing England backline options...

I give up!

You started it   

Neutralee wrote:

beshocked wrote:Neutralee it's pointless when you have 2 10s at centre though.

Probably have to be 2/ based on actually having a centre at 12!

Because international fly halfs can't play inside centre... I seem to remember Flood doing it pretty decently!

I'm not debating the positional abilities anyway, the idea is to pit 3 backlines against each other to find out who is the weakness and strength.

Ok then

9 Banahan
10 Tuilagi
11 Farrell
12 Nowell
13 Care
14 Burrell
15 Wade

How would that one get on?

Neutralee wrote:

beshocked wrote:Neutralee it's pointless when you have 2 10s at centre though.

Probably have to be 2/ based on actually having a centre at 12!

Because international fly halfs can't play inside centre... I seem to remember Flood doing it pretty decently!

I'm not debating the positional abilities anyway, the idea is to pit 3 backlines against each other to find out who is the weakness and strength.

Flood was never a great 12...and playing Ford and Burns at 10 and 12 is like putting the lambs to the wolves. Our back rowers would just spend all day cover tackling as those two were trodden over....

Cyril wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

beshocked wrote:Neutralee it's pointless when you have 2 10s at centre though.

Probably have to be 2/ based on actually having a centre at 12!

Because international fly halfs can't play inside centre... I seem to remember Flood doing it pretty decently!

I'm not debating the positional abilities anyway, the idea is to pit 3 backlines against each other to find out who is the weakness and strength.

Ok then

9 Banahan
10 Tuilagi
11 Farrell
12 Nowell
13 Care
14 Burrell
15 Wade

How would that one get on?

Given it's your first rugby contribution i'll take it.

You make an interesting point, Banahans pick and go would be pretty good, as would Tuilagi down the 10 chanell, I just worry about the wide chanell, 13 and 15 wwould struggle against the better attacks, and England would probably concede a fair few in the wide channells... that said they are doing that now so I'd be willing to give your backline a shot   

Play Banahan at 9 and his back would probably last 5 minutes, which would be longer than the rib cage of the poor sod at 10 trying to catch the ball!!

I realise that this wasn't a serious suggestion.....

Of the 10s able to play 12, I think Farrell is the most likely candidate, although I don't think he really has the leg speed for the job, plus whilst he's a defensively strong 10, his defense wouldn't be particularly special at 12.

I still like Eastmond at 12. He doesn't seem to have an issue carrying the ball into contact, his passing looks sharp and his footwork and accelaration mean he'll always be a threat with ball in hand. All the flaws we saw in the 3rd Test, particularly defensive postioning, looked to me like they could be coached - he just needs regular rugby at 12 for Bath this season, preferrably with Ford at 10.

Poor old Eastmond - he was part of a backs trio that couldn't stop a pig in a passage. Pretty much any attacking team in the world would be smirking as they faced Eastmond, Yarde & Ashton - my friend's 5-year old could get through those 3 and she's only got 1 leg. I guess Stewie's hope was that they'd score 4 to every 3 they let in...

But unlike Yarde (in particular) and Ashton, he wasn't missing tackles so much as being out of position (and the England pack were doing nothing to slow the momentum, meaning the defense was horribly narrow with large spaces to defend). In contrast his defence in the 1st Test looked excellent. This suggest to me not a flaw in the player, so much as the general defensive shape of the side. In short, a coaching issue rather than a fundamental flaw.

On the positive side he's an exceptional attacking talent. Probably best not to completely discount that quality.

bluestonevedder wrote:

beshocked wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:His communication?? Oh Beshocked we've argued this so many times. Its boring.

Your golden Boy Goode was not to blame though was he? Surely as the senior experienced player...HE should take charge of the situation over a 19yo playing his first senior international in Paris??

Goode was partly to blame sure but Goode had just come onto the pitch recently and was out of position (think he was though perhaps someone can verify). Plus he's not a player anyone rates (except for perhaps Lancaster and Greenwood).

Oh and I hold Lancaster more responsible than either Nowell and Goode.

No Goode went to fullback, with Brown shifting to the wing.

actually initially Goode WAS at wing, then when we let the try in, we moved Brown there as SL realised Goode at wing was madness

FES, I've raised the topic of Englands defensive tactics for sometime now...I think there's a problem with it.

There certainly was in that 3rd Test. When NZ increased the tempo England couldn't cope. The scramble was poor and the outside backs were all sucked in leaving huge spaces out wide.

funnyExiledScot wrote:There certainly was in that 3rd Test. When NZ increased the tempo England couldn't cope. The scramble was poor and the outside backs were all sucked in leaving huge spaces out wide.

Theres generally only one reason for wingers getting sucked in, and thats in the pack!