England Squad for the 6N 2016

First topic message reminder :

Well, the dust is settling on our early exit, time to concentrate on the next disappointment.

We obviously have no idea who the Head Coach or team will be at this current point, but we can take a stab at the potential squad going into the 6N.

2 games into the AP season, who's looking impressive? Who can come in under the radar and steal a spot? Are any of the disappointing WC squad going to grab the bull by the horns and actually impress! Who should be captain? What could or starting 23 be? Do we starting blooding for 2019 now?

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12504/10055764/richard-cockerill-tells-england-to-stop-trying-to-copy-new-zealand

I completely agree with him James. Spot on.

Finally confirmed- he's off.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34732141

bluestonevedder wrote:Finally confirmed- he's off.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34732141

Back to being a big fish in a small pond. Wasted opportunity and a waste of time for too many people

Bye bye Burgess.....

lostinwales wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Finally confirmed- he's off.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34732141

Back to being a big fish in a small pond. Wasted opportunity and a waste of time for too many people

Completely agree.

I'm sick of the media-craze surrounding it all.

I know he wasn't treated particularly well by the England set up, but it seems to me that Burgess made the transition purely for the bright lights of a home world cup and personal gain. His sudden departure only fuels this train of thought. He wasn't deserving of a place in the squad, and better players missed out because of him. It feels like the RFU and England bowed down to him.

As an England fan I feel saddened because I invested so much hope in this world cup and Burgess' inclusion, and it feels like we've been taken for a ride a bit.

Bit of shame, would have been a cracking 6 but sunshine, dosh and a chance to go back to a game he prefers is a strong motivator.

Englandglory4ever will need a support group for this news.

Leaves behind a lot of what ifs.

In particular, can't help wondering what Burgess would have chosen to do if he hadn't been selected for the World Cup.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Englandglory4ever will need a support group for this news.

Nah, he will continue to claim Burgess was a world class centre, who has been driven away from the game by vicious keyboard warriors like - well me and you I guess. that we are not worthy of even mentioning his name, and should have been castrated at birth.

Rugby Fan wrote:Leaves behind a lot of what ifs.

In particular, can't help wondering what Burgess would have chosen to do if he hadn't been selected for the World Cup.

He'd have went earlier.

Shows a complete lack of metal for me and someone afraid of hard work. Why bother ever coming?

Well, we will never know what could have been. Personally I think Lancaster has dropped one here by rushing him in far too early. On the plus side the media can now focus on people who have played more games of rugby than an average 12 year old.

How do you feel as Bath fan?

Shame I think he could have been a great 6....whole thing has been terribly managed though. Anyway, it's over now....bye bye circus.

I actually thinked he has made the right call. Disappointing that it did not work out better, but I think he realises that his skill set is not easily transferable to union. He is great at doing what he does....running hard, off-loading and smashing people in the tackle. He is also clearly a natural leader and rises to the occaison and could have made it in union, but he now realises that it will take some time. Not being a centre the art of being a back row forward has many different aspects to it, which are all alien to him. The thought of learning his trade at Bath for another season to potentially make it back into an England shirt versus instantly being one of Leagues best players was no contest it appears.

As an armchair theorist of no repute, I think Burgess was a great hit with other squad members in training camp, which was one reason he was eventually selected.

However, the fact he was selected meant he was no longer such a hit with some parts of the training squad - not limited to those excluded - which would have worked against the impact the coaches wanted him to have.

Robshaw will probably start at 6 in the 6n anyway so whats the issue?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:How do you feel as Bath fan?

I did comment more fully above but I think if he had been quietly left to learn his role at 6 he could have been a really good ball carrying flanker, in a similar role to Burger at the WC. As it is I think the England management really screwed up and hoped that his strength of personality would somehow mask their own coaching deficiencies. However I am also disappointed in him for walking out rather than staying to fight for a spot.

LondonTiger wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Englandglory4ever will need a support group for this news.

Nah, he will continue to claim Burgess was a world class centre, who has been driven away from the game by vicious keyboard warriors like - well me and you I guess. that we are not worthy of even mentioning his name, and should have been castrated at birth.

That is completely true, what was I thinking.

Irrelevant of Burgess.....

If we cant find a decent 6 in a balanced pack from the below...then we are in serious trouble....

Chris Robshaw
Tom Wood
Dave Ewers
Calum Clark
Mark Wilson
Mario Itoje?? Think hes a lock personally
James Haskell
Tom Croft
Jack Clifford
etc etc

With others like Joel Conlon at Sarries coming through.

We could even move Billy V to 6 and that gives you Josh Beaumont at 8 (unless he moves to lock) and a different dimension in the back row. And a lineout option.

Beaumont is a long way off what we need currently GF

I was just showing some options Sgt.

One or two are further down the line others aren't. Beaumont, Conlon Clifford etc...all very raw may or may not make it.

Others are on the wane like Haskell, Wood etc...but can be used in a balanced pack.

Ie Tom Wood is not in favour BUT with some speed and power around him could be a very useful player.

If we cant get a 6 from all that then we have problems.

Why is Beaumont a long way off?

From what i've seen he's had a good start to the season. Strong carrier, busting tackles, making yards.

Admittedly I haven't watched every Sale game, so could be missing something.

He's miles behind the options we have, he had a real poor showing for the Saxons. He's a decent player but couldn't play past AP level yet imo

Which options Sgt.

Just Billy and Ben, or do you include the soon to be eligible Nathan Hughes.

Yea GF, I think we're well stocked at 8. Perhaps we could convert one of these options to 6?

It would be Billy for me. I think he offers more than Ben and has considerable presence. And has played at 6 before.

Or Hughes...and im sure hes already played 6 hasn't he?

I worry a little about Nathan Hughes. I don't want him in as he's blatantly refused Fiji etc to qualify on residency for us.

But Billy V was "the next big thing " and "explosive" when he came on the scene. Now hes still only 23 or something and people are looking past him.

Now Nathan Hughes is " explosive" etc

I'd rather work with Billy and Ben and see if Beaumont can make the grade and be a slightly different option to those two.

And any others who come through,.

I feel very uneasy with Hughes pulling on the white shirt.

Zero issues with Hughes personally as those are the rules, every other nation is doing it so why shouldn't we?

Hughes is very much in the Kaino mould, with some work he'd make a fantastic 6. Imagine a pack of:

1. Marler
2. George
3. Cole
4. Launchbury
5. Symons
6. Hughes
7. Armitage/Fraser
8. Vuinipola

Physicality, carrying and breakdown galore!

Aside from Symons who I cant really comment on yet, I agree that would be a very strong scrum / pack.

Though now I would change Armitage for Kvesic as well.

Let Fraser and Kvesic battle it out for that 7 spot.

That looks pretty good to me Sgt. Providing Symons is as good as I've heard. Otherwise perhaps look at a ball carrier there, maybe Slater. I think Lawes has to be around still as an atetic option to Launchbury, along with Kitchener. Come to think of it we really don't have any strong carrying locks

Would also keep an eye on Marler and Cole. If their scrimmaging doesn't improve there's no real reason for the latter in particular to be there

bluestonevedder wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Finally confirmed- he's off.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34732141

Back to being a big fish in a small pond. Wasted opportunity and a waste of time for too many people

Completely agree.

I'm sick of the media-craze surrounding it all.

I know he wasn't treated particularly well by the England set up, but it seems to me that Burgess made the transition purely for the bright lights of a home world cup and personal gain. His sudden departure only fuels this train of thought. He wasn't deserving of a place in the squad, and better players missed out because of him. It feels like the RFU and England bowed down to him.

As an England fan I feel saddened because I invested so much hope in this world cup and Burgess' inclusion, and it feels like we've been taken for a ride a bit.

It's worth reading Will Greenwood's comments in the Telegraph on this. He's also saddened but he's much more sympathetic to Burgess's position. Since he's met him and I imagine none of us have, he's worth listening to.

In terms of back row options, tonight's game should tell us a fair bit with Beaumont, Wallace and Robshaw starting and Clifford and James Chisholm on the bench. Also look out for Sam Twomey in the second row - he's looked very comfortable in the company of James Horwill in the opening games.

Having read Greenwood’s piece I’m not sure I buy all this poor old Sam was upset by the nasty RFU. Now I would normally happily join the booting of the old pharts, but aren’t the 2 guys to blame SL and Sam himself? SL for selecting him, for selecting him at IC, for subbing him, for dropping him…and for being generally clueless. And Sam for either thinking he could be a top RU test player in the 5 minutes he played RU, or for getting the hell out of it when things looked not so easy? Surely the Aus climate, girlfriend and family were all issues when he joined Bath – they are hardly things he couldn’t have foreseen. He was given a run at his 2 most likely positions (although it’s not his fault that SL disagreed with Ford), and fast-tracked into the test team. What exactly did he want in addition that he didn't get - surely he didn't expect a winner's medal? And he couldn’t have been surprised by the media feeding frenzy – we all know what our press is like. And I’ve not read much that explicitly blames Sam for the England debacle - just that he was part of it. I'm just thankful he wasn't involved with any dwarves tbh.

I’m sad that he’s chosen to go because Sam could have been a star in RU – but not if he didn’t really want it. IMO neither Sam nor SL come out of this well, and perhaps it’s best for England RU if they both go, and we move on.

Poorfour

I have a few good things about Twomey. How did he go last night.

Massively disappointed with Symons so far, he's certainly taking time to adapt back to English rugby.

Twomeys been very effective as a physical lock in these last few games, does a lot of grunt work and runs the line out.

He's way off a call up yet but in s couple of seasons? Who knows.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Massively disappointed with Symons so far, he's certainly taking time to adapt back to English rugby.

I think it's going to be difficult for any player to look good for London Irish this season.

Patterson (the last great new thing) looked gash for Saints too, so that's two we can rule out.

Englands RWC failure suddenly makes sense...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6731974/England-World-Cup-rugby-players-in-shares-scandal.html

Oh dear

Well done Yappysnap, you have put a smile on my face.

Back to the thread, obviously form and fitness as well as who will be the coach selecting the squad will be determining factors, however players I don't want to see play for england again would be;

Goode
Barritt
Wigglesworth
Wood
Vickery

I don't know, I still sort of rate Goode and Vickery. Both have their skills.

Goode if used instead of Brown and especially with Ford at 10 has shown he can be a danger. Yes he's not that quick but other then that he's a very skilled player and unlike Brown he can pass and kick tactically regularly. I don't think he's one for the long term but with Watson/Yarde/May etc on the wings and Ford at fly half he's a useful player. He should never ever be played alongside Brown though, and I think Nowell would cause the same problem if he was on the wing with Goode.

Vickery is an experienced Int and has a good few years left in him.

What do you English fans think the future will hold for Owen Farrell if/when there is a new coaching set up?

Do you think that he is good enough to deserve his position given that Ford is the better player and there are some good up and coming players?

Farrell has a place, he's a very solid option.

Ford has some impressive skills but lacks game management and kicking in the bigger games. He's still got a lot to learn.

I would not have him myself. I think that he is a solid defender and a decent place kicker (not a very good tactical kicker IMNO) and is not a very good attacker. He does not get the backline moving at al and constricts England's selections in the backs.

If England get solidity back in their pack then for me its Ford every day, still has a lot to learn but is already the superior player to Farrell. I would have Cipriani over Farrell...

Farrell, Ford & Cipriani are good options to have, I've got no major issue with any of them being involved.

On Form I'd go Ford and Cipriani, but Farrell is a quality big game poor weather player, basically perfect for most of the 6N's. I think there's a place for him fighting it out for that second spot with Cipriani.

Ford himself needs to find some form though, he was poor for England, some of that may be the coaches and forwards but as a 10 he needs to deal better with Poopie ball and work the territory when an all court running game isn't on.

Cipriani is probably the form 10 right now. Really good balance between passing, running and kicking and he seems to playing what's in front of him a lot more these days rather then what he wants to do.

Farrell seems to be even more petulant if that's possible, he needs to spend less time trying to fight people and more time actually playing.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Farrell has a place, he's a very solid option.

Ford has some impressive skills but lacks game management and kicking in the bigger games. He's still got a lot to learn.

Ford needs to learn to kick like O'Gara but learn not tackle like a person who came out on the wrong end of the zombie apocalypse

A coach who'd finally take Cips seriously would make it very interesting. Be a wake-up call for Farrell as well.

I'm afraid it's too late for Vickery though - I'm hearing he's finally retired.

I have always liked the way Cipriani plays, he can be so dangerous in attack.

I just don't see Farrell as a way forward for England. They have got an excellent backline and they need a 10 that can utilise them and Farrell just isn't that type of 10.

England with Ford at 10 (prior to the RWC shambles) had England's backline doing some excellent stuff. When Farrell is on, its far to defensive orientated and predictable.

Symons has hardly been lighting it up @ Irish (Granted no one has).

Attwood prob the most in form Lock ATM in England IMO.

I'm not sure even Attwood has looked that great Welly. Symons has really struggled to adapt, lets hope he improves. At the minute it's Launchbury carrying the flag....

Ah plenty of time for players to find form and fitness.