England Squad Announcement - 27/08/2014

First topic message reminder :

England 2015 Rugby World Cup squad

Props:
Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints, 10 caps)
Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 51 caps)
Joe Marler (Harlequins, 32 caps)
Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 22 caps)
David Wilson (Bath Rugby, 43 caps)

Hookers:
Jamie George (Saracens, 1 cap)
Rob Webber (Bath Rugby, 13 caps)
Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 23 caps)

Second rows:
George Kruis (Saracens, 8 caps)
Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 23 caps)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 39 caps)
Geoff Parling (Exeter Chiefs, 24 caps)

Back rows:
James Haskell (Wasps, 60 caps)
Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby, 28 caps)
Chris Robshaw (captain, Harlequins, 38 caps)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 18 caps)
Tom Wood (Northampton Saints, 37 caps)

Scrum halves:
Danny Care (Harlequins, 52 caps)
Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens, 22 caps)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 48 caps)

Fly halves:
Owen Farrell (Saracens, 30 caps)
George Ford (Bath Rugby, 12 caps)

Centres:
Brad Barritt (Saracens, 22 caps)
Sam Burgess (Bath Rugby, 1 cap)
Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 12 caps)
Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 1 cap)

Back three:
Mike Brown (Harlequins, 38 caps)
Alex Goode (Saracens, 18 caps)
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby, 15 caps)
Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 9 caps)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, 10 caps)

It seems that Kruis is preferred over Attwood due to his better breakdown work. That concerns me as clearly the area we struggled with against France was getting bashed up front. Attwood does provide more bulk and power, which is very handy at scrum time and in the gain line battles. Lawes and Launchbury are pretty mobile and as Parling is certainly not a powerhouse I think Attwood provides a point of difference and therefore should get the nod.

Corbs is also apparently out and that I believe is far more to do with his recent injury and overall injury track record. He really has not played enough and showed decent form to warrant his inclusion. We were all hoping for his return to Lions form, but sadly it is not to be.

For all those who miss out they are only an injury from getting back in so hopefully they all start ripping up trees for their clubs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11826933/Rugby-World-Cup-2015-Sam-Burgess-still-sweating-on-England-spot-as-Stuart-Lancaster-delays-decision.html

So if the Telegraph is correct 29 out of 31 positions are settled with Burrell/Burgess and Easter/Morgan still to be decided...

Disappointed that Goode has been included over Cipriani - the latter would have been a good option off the bench if England needed to attack, whereas Goode is a rather uninspiring option.

I hope common sense prevails and Burrell is chosen over Burgess. The best position of Burgess isn't even known, and there's very little semblance of an idea as to what he can offer at an international rugby union. At least with Burrell, you have a proven performer (Wales 2014).

Morgan/Easter sounds like it will depend on the outcome of whether or not Morgan is fit. I hope he is, and I hope he's picked - the impact of what he can offer far surpasses Easter.

Overall, if the Telegraph are to believed with the make-up of the entire squad (they usually are, in fairness), I think it's a decent England squad, but one that will fall just short of the highest level. Inconsistency and inexperience are also big factors. Indiscipline tends to hit at critical times, and there are doubts about the ability of the set-piece.

But the backs can be explosive, on their day, and England have shown under Lancaster that they can muster a level of intensity and physical fitness that matches any team in the world. A decent goal-kicker, with an air for creative flair, is in place too. Home advantage is quite nice as well.

It's not all bad.

The expectation should be for England to make their third World Cup final in four tournaments. Anything less is a failure; glory itself isn't out of the question.

Duty281 wrote:Disappointed that Goode has been included over Cipriani - the latter would have been a good option off the bench if England needed to attack, whereas Goode is a rather uninspiring option.

I hope common sense prevails and Burrell is chosen over Burgess. The best position of Burgess isn't even known, and there's very little semblance of an idea as to what he can offer at an international rugby union. At least with Burrell, you have a proven performer (Wales 2014).

Morgan/Easter sounds like it will depend on the outcome of whether or not Morgan is fit. I hope he is, and I hope he's picked - the impact of what he can offer far surpasses Easter.

Overall, if the Telegraph are to believed with the make-up of the entire squad (they usually are, in fairness), I think it's a decent England squad, but one that will fall just short of the highest level. Inconsistency and inexperience are also big factors. Indiscipline tends to hit at critical times, and there are doubts about the ability of the set-piece.

But the backs can be explosive, on their day, and England have shown under Lancaster that they can muster a level of intensity and physical fitness that matches any team in the world. A decent goal-kicker, with an air for creative flair, is in place too. Home advantage is quite nice as well.

It's not all bad.

The expectation should be for England to make their third World Cup final in four tournaments. Anything less is a failure; glory itself isn't out of the question.

Very much agree with you on Cips over Goode - even though Goode has been a loyal servent and is a steadier option in many ways Cipriani seems more likely to change a game if required. Not sure on Burrell Burgess - head says Burrell and heart Burgess. We'll know soon.

This WC is obviously a year or two too early for this squad. Nonetheless, with home advantage, and that backline, they have a puncher's chance.

Morgan is a better player than Easter, but he isn't properly fit and I think Easter's experience could be useful so I'd go with him. Goode was superb against France and deserves his place. It's a real shame about Cipriani, but he isn't a fullback. I'd have him as my starting 10 actually (and even leave Ford out of the squad - I doubt such an inexperienced 10 can win a WC), but that isn't going to happen. Still, there is a very high chance of him being called up if any of the FHs or FBs get injured, so he shouldn't despair.

Burrell was excellent at 13 with a creative player inside him. As a 12 I think he and Burgess are much of a muchness - Burrell has more experience and Burgess more power.

Duty, what Morgan and Easter offer is very different but I think - especially on current evidence - it's a bit much to say that Morgan far surpasses Easter.

When fully fit and in form, Morgan does offer a power carrying option that few can match (and that England could do with in the absence of Tuilagi). But he doesn't offer Easter's positional skills, offloading or lineout ability. All of those have been lacking in the first two games.

Add to that Easter's understanding with Robshaw (who we can pretty much guarantee will be on the pitch) and Care (who looks to have at least a 50% chance of being there at any point in time) and the gap narrows further.

For me, the decisive factor is simply that Morgan is coming back from a horrible injury and looks to be fully recovered by short of cardio and match fitness with little time to recover it. Unless he's improved dramatically in the last week, I am not sure I want to take the risk on that.

DaveM wrote:...It's a real shame about Cipriani, but he isn't a fullback...Still, there is a very high chance of him being called up if any of the FHs or FBs get injured...

If Brown has to leave the tournament, I'm not sure I want Cipriani to be first cab off the rank. I know he's trained with the squad, but I'd rather have a specialist full back brought in, or else another winger so Watson or Nowell can cover Goode.

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cips was at 10 in the early days.

Do you mean 15?

For completeness his first cap was a replacement at center, so we are all wrong.

What time is the announcement?

Sorry just saw in OP - 13:45

Strongly suggested that Burrell will miss out at Burgess's expense.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34070420

Allegedly it's George over Cowan-Dickie, Brookes over Corbisiero, Kruis over Attwood, Easter over Morgan, Slade over Twelvetrees and Burgess over Burrell.

Given Morgan was expected to play for more than 40 and didn't I'd assume his fitness isn't there. I'd personally be taking Twelvetrees and Slade and Burgess isn't a centre!

No 7&1/2 wrote:and Burgess isn't a centre!

Try telling that to Lancaster

To be honest there's not really been much between Kruis and Attwood.

I think Attwood lost it through his poor 6n performances which he's obviously not improved upon in training.

He's never brought the power to the pack we hoped he could. Thus Kruis is a lineout man and does the lock / 6 work that Lancaster likes.

Such a shame that Slater had his injury. I would like to have seen him get a good test at this level...see if he can bring his power game.

I cant believe they're selecting Burgess as a centre. What a waste. I'd take him as a back rower over Haskell.

Artful_Dodger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:and Burgess isn't a centre!

Try telling that to Lancaster

He's stopped answering my calls.

Artful_Dodger wrote:Allegedly it's George over Cowan-Dickie, Brookes over Corbisiero, Kruis over Attwood, Easter over Morgan, Slade over Twelvetrees and Burgess over Burrell.

I'll be stunned if those are the selections.

Honestly couldn't tell if they're good or bad, just amazed that 6 weeks of training and 1 warm up game can count for so much.

yappysnap wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:Allegedly it's George over Cowan-Dickie, Brookes over Corbisiero, Kruis over Attwood, Easter over Morgan, Slade over Twelvetrees and Burgess over Burrell.

I'll be stunned if those are the selections.

Honestly couldn't tell if they're good or bad, just amazed that 6 weeks of training and 1 warm up game can count for so much.

As an outsider, the only ones I disagree with are Burgess over Burrell and Easter over Morgan.  But if Morgan is struggling with fitness to the point some claim then it may make sense.  Brookes over Corbisiero may seem crazy, but Corbisiero has looked a shadow of his former self.

George over Cowan-Dickie is a no brainier at this point, LCD needs to finish learning to throw before he can be considered a challenger.

Brookes over Corbisiero hhmmmm, Corbisiero just doesn't look the player he used to be and it could have gone either way as far as I am concerned.

Heard elsewhere that Morgan was moved to lighter training last week, could be that he has had an injury set back.

I've disagreed with Burgess being a centre until I'm blue in the face, I can't do it again.

I feel disappointed for Attwood.

Slade is a worthy selection, but our centres look SO inexperienced.

Attwood has never really been a physical lock. Eg. He is always the first to quit and stand up in a maul. kruis is much more complete second row player.

I keep laughing at the few posters who constantly say "he isn't a centre" about Burgess. Er, hello. Wake up and watch where he is actually playing ffs. Just because they don't like being shown up they have to keep grinding on like a broken record.

The coaches are doing ok. But I do worry about the dross we saw last week.

Does that mean Bergamasco was a scrum half?

Does LCD actually start for Exeter? I thought It was mostly Yeandle who got selected at hooker for them?

GeordieFalcon wrote:I cant believe they're selecting Burgess as a centre. What a waste. I'd take him as a back rower over Haskell.

Part of the reason for choosing Burgess over Burrell might be that he could if needed be a back row replacement. He offers some versatility off the bench.

Interesting and quite balanced analysis by Carling in the Guardian - Will Carling in the Grauniad - where he questions Burgess's positioning in defence.

englandglory4ever wrote:Attwood has never really been a physical lock. Eg. He is always the first to quit and stand up in a maul. kruis is much more complete second row player.

I keep laughing at the few posters who constantly say "he isn't a centre" about Burgess. Er, hello. Wake up and watch where he is actually playing ffs. Just because they don't like being shown up they have to keep grinding on like a broken record.

The coaches are doing ok. But I do worry about the dross we saw last week.

By that logic you could stick Dan Cole in a  12/13 shirt and call him centre, he may be able to do some aspects of it well but he will still end up being a Frak liability.  Just because Burgess is playing as a centre doesn't actually make him an effective one. I believe Burgess will definitely get a game at some point and I worry that it will cost us dearly.

I have this recurring nightmare of the aussie midfield running rings round the huge immovable object that is Sam. The man's a rugby monster, but he ain't for turning. It would be a shame to see his reputation stained by panic mis-selection. What is it about English coaches just before a RWC?

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I have this recurring nightmare of the aussie midfield running rings round the huge immovable object that is Sam. The man's a rugby monster, but he ain't for turning. It would be a shame to see his reputation stained by panic mis-selection. What is it about English coaches just before a RWC?

I have a similar worry. He doesn't seem agile enough to me, I worry about players popping a pass as he puts a huge hit on them. I can't help but worry that teams with better handling skills will carve him up.

Cumbrian wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I have this recurring nightmare of the aussie midfield running rings round the huge immovable object that is Sam. The man's a rugby monster, but he ain't for turning. It would be a shame to see his reputation stained by panic mis-selection. What is it about English coaches just before a RWC?

I have a similar worry.  He doesn't seem agile enough to me, I worry about players popping a pass as he puts a huge hit on them.  I can't help but worry that teams with better handling skills will carve him up.

You are right of course. But it might also be fun going into the Wales match and then saying, go on Jamie, run through him....

I just cant work out why they're focusing on him at centre so much. It's blatant - EVERY England fan can see it...hes a 6!

Would this have been the case if Manu was available and fit.....

Yeah you have to think Burgess will be selected for Fiji and perhaps Wales, but probably not Australia.

Burgess is not a worry defensively at 12. The way rugby is today you aren't going to dance skip past a 12 in set play, the way the game is set up and the players in that channel don't have the skills for one.

Like France, the opposition may think he's a weakness but 2-3 plays in they will avoid the area as much as possible.

Geordie - I myself see him as a 12. I don't see him being a class 6. His skills are wasted there and its a very difficult position to play from scratch. Added to this, England have more than enough cover at 6 both internationally and domestically. Where they lack is a genuine wrecking machine at 12 and Burgess can be it.

lostinwales wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I have this recurring nightmare of the aussie midfield running rings round the huge immovable object that is Sam. The man's a rugby monster, but he ain't for turning. It would be a shame to see his reputation stained by panic mis-selection. What is it about English coaches just before a RWC?

I have a similar worry.  He doesn't seem agile enough to me, I worry about players popping a pass as he puts a huge hit on them.  I can't help but worry that teams with better handling skills will carve him up.

You are right of course. But it might also be fun going into the Wales match and then saying, go on Jamie, run through him....

It strikes me that the English management have looked at the world's centre stocks and said 'There is, Roberts, Bastareaud, Williams, Kuridrani, Nonu, De Villers... What do we need?' *slams hands on table* "Bigger!"

It is true that England have not had a big inside man for a long long time. Barritt can tackle yes and carries... but he makes little forward ball and that is what teams needs these days.

No because we always have the big man at 13....

Tindall
Manu
Burrell

If Burgess is picked then it would be likely that SL would play him in the "easy" game against Fiji!
I can imagine their back line and pack relishing the prospect of running round slamming Sam in open play.
I imagine frustration, a league swinging arm and the inevitable yellow card would then kick in, or am I being overly pessimistic?
The probable Fiji 12, Botia who plays for Brive, is much shorter than Sam but has quick feet, is strong and aggressive (he has picked up a fair few yellows for Brive !) and doesn't take a step back in the tackle, it would be a fascinating match up.

GeordieFalcon wrote:No because we always have the big man at 13....

Tindall
Manu
Burrell

A bit of a night is day and day is night philosophy compared to the rest of the world's ideas on 12 and 13.

Slade and Joseph to get a 20 min run out together. I'd just like to see what that partnership does.

Geordie - I myself see him as a 12. I don't see him being a class 6. His skills are wasted there and its a very difficult position to play from scratch. Added to this, England have more than enough cover at 6 both internationally and domestically. Where they lack is a genuine wrecking machine at 12 and Burgess can be it.

BUt my problem is...he's not skilled like say Slade can be.

He's a wrecking ball of a player...so play him in a position where he will get the chance to do that regularly...at 6. He can carry hard..and he can tackle.

You say we have lots of options at 6. Name them?

Lets focus on getting the skill in the backs...Slade at 12...joseph at 13.
If we need size then when Manu is finally fit he can come back in.

Don't forget we also have Hill and Stephenson amongst others coming through at 12...JWC winners in that position who have lots of physicality.

Artful_Dodger wrote:Allegedly it's George over Cowan-Dickie, Brookes over Corbisiero, Kruis over Attwood, Easter over Morgan, Slade over Twelvetrees and Burgess over Burrell.

To be honest if it turns out like that then that's not bad. I have criticised Lancaster, mainly for squandering opportunities to try out the best backrow alternatives.

That squad selection is pretty good actually.

Even Burgess over Burrell - Lancaster couldn't really leave out Burgess now - he's invested enough time and effort in him. Could probably get away picking him against Fiji and Uruguay.

If Morgan is struggling for fitness then of course Easter should be the 2nd 8.

Attwood vs Kruis - both are okay as replacements but I don't think either is going to set the world alight.

sensisball wrote:If Burgess is picked then it would be likely that SL would play him in the "easy" game against Fiji!
I can imagine their back line and pack relishing the prospect of running round slamming Sam in open play.
I imagine frustration, a league swinging arm and the inevitable yellow card would then kick in, or am I being overly pessimistic?
The probable Fiji 12, Botia who plays for Brive, is much shorter than Sam but has quick feet, is strong and aggressive (he has picked up a fair few yellows for Brive !) and doesn't take a step back in the tackle, it would be a fascinating match up.

As your comment on Botia suggests, the swinging arm is at least as likely to come from a Fijian as from Burgess. He looked to have his tackles well controlled against France.

The way England defend, they like to have one player come out of the line to try to disrupt the oppositions attacking pattern, and Burgess does that very well as Szarzewski found out. The worry is more whether he will leave gaps in multi-phase play when England have to respond to what they see rather than play a fixed defensive pattern.

Skills are great but if you have no brute strength at 12 then you will be smashed to pieces.

Slade at 12 would be a nightmare. He's a 10. It would be like seeing Charlie Hodgson vs. France in 2002 all over again. If you want him to play 12 then he needs at least 12 months of conditioning.

You need your piano carriers, your piano players. I can imagine the opposition laughing their faces off the minute they saw a 9,10,12,13 backline  of Care, Ford, Slade & Joseph. It would be lambs to the slaughter.

Options at 6?

Wood, Croft, Robshaw (a real 6 whatever anyone says), Haskell, Itoje, (Ewers I think is the impressive youngster at Gloucester or Exeter???). Vunipola can also play 6 if needs be.

Name any 12s? Barritt, 36...... not so deep.

PoorFour,

Normally I would agree but Botia is about 5ft 11 and so it will be hard to swing an arm at the 6ft 4 Burgess whereas it will be more of a temptation for Burgess, if Botia manages to out maneuver the big man.

Not saying that Burgess is a dirty player but as Dallaglio said in his Sunday times column last week some of Sam's tackles appear borderline in their legality as he doesn't make much of an effort to wrap his arms round a player. Given his lack of experience at playing 12, under pressure he might throw in a few wild tackles.
Time will tell, I guess.

So Burgess is in over Burrell.  Career making/breaking moment for Lancaster?
Morgan in the squad as well.

As reported by the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11827273/England-Rugby-World-Cup-squad-announcement-live.html

You have a strange analysis of English players fa. Why would Slade be a nightmare defensively?

fa0019 wrote:Skills are great but if you have no brute strength at 12 then you will be smashed to pieces.

Slade at 12 would be a nightmare. He's a 10. It would be like seeing Charlie Hodgson vs. France in 2002 all over again. If you want him to play 12 then he needs at least 12 months of conditioning.

Slade doesn't run from tackles and he's not as small as all that - he's 6'2" and a shade under 90 kilos. That's about 10 kilos less than Barritt or Twelvetrees, but the same sort of weight as Matt Giteau, Mat Toomua or Kurtley Beale, though his height probably makes him look lighter.

It's also the same weight as Wilkinson, who was never noted as a weak tackler. As any coach will tell you, technique counts for a lot.

@sensisball
I think he'll be fine with that. As long as you hand-wave at using both hands you can just smash players. There doesn't really have to be any real attempt at wrapping or timing a tackle properly. One of his tackles last week was very Lawes-like.

Skills are great but if you have no brute strength at 12 then you will be smashed to pieces.

Slade at 12 would be a nightmare. He's a 10. It would be like seeing Charlie Hodgson vs. France in 2002 all over again. If you want him to play 12 then he needs at least 12 months of conditioning.

Slade is 6'2 and 14st. Hes not a stick...and he's a very strong tackler. Would be nothing like Hodgson.

You need your piano carriers, your piano players. I can imagine the opposition laughing their faces off the minute they saw a 9,10,12,13 backline  of Care, Ford, Slade & Joseph. It would be lambs to the slaughter.

Im not sure they'd be laughing after a while.

Options at 6?

Wood, Croft, Robshaw (a real 6 whatever anyone says), Haskell, Itoje, (Ewers I think is the impressive youngster at Gloucester or Exeter???). Vunipola can also play 6 if needs be.

Wood is not the imposing 6 required.
Croft is made of glass nor the imposing 6 required
Robshaw - I would happily move him to 6
Haskell has proved he will never meet the consistency requirments
Itoje - Could certainly be one...but talk is he'll be a lock
Ewers - Should be in the squad now.

So that's Robshaw who is inked in at 7.
And two with huge potential who haven't even been trialled by Lancaster.

Name any 12s? Barritt, 36...... not so deep.

Barritt
Burrell
Slade
Stephenson
Hill
Quins have a lump of a lad coming through aswell.

We have lots of options post WC at 12.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Options at 6?

Wood, Croft, Robshaw (a real 6 whatever anyone says), Haskell, Itoje, (Ewers I think is the impressive youngster at Gloucester or Exeter???). Vunipola can also play 6 if needs be.

Wood is not the imposing 6 required.
Croft is made of glass nor the imposing 6 required
Robshaw - I would happily move him to 6
Haskell has proved he will never meet the consistency requirments
Itoje - Could certainly be one...but talk is he'll be a lock
Ewers - Should be in the squad now.

So that's Robshaw who is inked in at 7.
And two with huge potential who haven't even been trialled by Lancaster.

Geordie, If you were to move Robshaw to 6, then Wood can play 7, his normal position at Saints. I think that move would plus up England that little bit extra.

Do we think Burgess would be the next man in at 12 if Barritt gets injured?

The play left and right though Dr.

As Lancaster started things to stabalise the team etc...yes it workd great. But im not sure that combo...or just a left right flank combo will take us forward...