[2013 EOYT] England

[TRF_Olyy]

I'll take this as an admission that Sale are ****e then Olyy?

Not particularly this season, but he's been a standout for us every year he's been a first teamer, including several where we've been absolute gash.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Whilst there is an argument that nobody is different enough to Robshaw to take his place, what about when Robshaw is injured? Robshaw is a known quantity to us and we gain nothing by keeping him in terms of team building. The alternatives need game time either to show they are better than Robshaw or at very least show who is the best cover if Robshaw is unavailable. I also think England generally need to get into the habit of constantly feeding new, young talent into the team. All the best teams in the world do it but England lags behind. We have a habit of getting an established team and sticking with it, letting them get old then suddenly realising we haven't prepared anyone to replace them. This is part of the reason why England nosedived after the 2003 world cup, we had stuck with a team that were very very good but they got old and retired yet we hadn't found and trained young talent up to a level where they could replace them.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Fair enough point ragerancher - thing is though I have never bought this idea of looking any further than the next few games - there's this quite prevalent idea out there that world cups are by far the most important thing and something to always have an eye for? Obviously, it's the premier thing to win and the greatest achievement a nation can have in the sport, no question - but when you bear in mind that we as fans live for each and every game, with six nations tournaments being 4 times more frequent than world cups, I personally think you need to see each game as equally important - therefore for me, you always play your best player on any given occasion, except when there's a completely borderline call between e.g an older known quantity, and a younger unblooded player, in a game where you would expect to win anyway and where that change won't cost you. E.g I'd completely agree with say playing Attwood instead of parling in a home match against Italy(no offence italy), or with playing Jack Nowell instead of Ashton(goes without saying, as I think he's better anyway) but when it comes to Robshaw versus Kvesic/whoever else I still believe the daylight between them is sufficient to go for Robshaw every time. Thing is the majority of games England play are ones which we could easily lose - and it would be unforgivable therefore for that to happen simply because we haven't put our our best team.

having said all that...I would agree with a certain extent of blooding in the right conditions: For example, (sorry again Italy) I would consider playing a back-row of 6. Robshaw 7. Kvesic in a home match against the Italians just to see who that works - but you need to have your best players available in case things go pear shaped.

 

[Crapspray]

I'd add that this year's Six Nations' schedule doesn't leave much room for experimentation. First up in Paris is no time to tinker; Scotland can turn anyone over in the rain at Murrayfield; Ireland and Wales at home are again hard matches; and if England go into the last game in Rome chasing the tournament, (or even a 'Slam) it's no time to take risks. If it were the opposite schedule, with Italy and Scotland at Twickenham, then perhaps. Though Lancaster did, to an extent, tinker against Italy this year- to the detriment of the tournament result in my view.

The only matches this year I could see borderline players like Kvesic get game time (aside from injuries) are the midweek game(s) in New Zealand and maybe Samoa in the Autumn. The rest are too important to tinker in.

 

[nickdnz]

Mmm, now's not the time for England to be messing with their squad. Or next year because it's a rugby world cup year. And you don't really want to disrupt all continuity right after a rugby world cup. Nope. 2032. That's the time to give Kvesic a run.

 

[McTallshort]

Whilst there is an argument that nobody is different enough to Robshaw to take his place, what about when Robshaw is injured? Robshaw is a known quantity to us and we gain nothing by keeping him in terms of team building. The alternatives need game time either to show they are better than Robshaw or at very least show who is the best cover if Robshaw is unavailable. I also think England generally need to get into the habit of constantly feeding new, young talent into the team. All the best teams in the world do it but England lags behind. We have a habit of getting an established team and sticking with it, letting them get old then suddenly realising we haven't prepared anyone to replace them. This is part of the reason why England nosedived after the 2003 world cup, we had stuck with a team that were very very good but they got old and retired yet we hadn't found and trained young talent up to a level where they could replace them.

There are not enough games between now and the world cup to mess about, the pack is fine the back row of Wood, Robshaw and billy is as good as most and unless whats his name starts ripping up trees in Gloucester then I would not really worry its not like Robshaw is 34 like Neil Back was in 2003

 

[ratsapprentice]

I think every single set of games over the last two years I've heard people say "Now is not the time to mess about".
Always talking about bring new guys into the EPS, but so non-committal about actually playing them.
What is with English people and their refusal to drip feed young players from the bench?
We always end up having to drop someone (or a whole new team) right in it because we never take the opportunity to see how other players go.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I bloody hope it's not too late to mess about, our backs are ****.
We desperately need to trial some wingers, a 13 or two, and a flyhalf or two.
Since Lancaster came in Flood's had about 4 starts, but Farrell has been first name on the team sheet and is incredibly uninspiring. We got close to having Yarde and Wade in the side, but injuries sidlined them, and it's looking worryingly like Strettle and Ashton are going to be our wingers for the 6N.
It's all well and good Lancaster saying he's rewarding form players, by having them in/around/training with the EPS, but if he's picking the same old dross then it means sweet FA.

 

[Aristodemus]

I'm not sure we need to start messing with our pack. I feel that Launchbury, Lawes, Wood and Robshaw are all workhorses and collectively make the whole pack mobile. The front row may need looking at and Billy/Morgan need to settle the battle but other than that I am happy. I fully agree with Olyy on the backs though, I only see Manu and Brown as certain to be in the world cup plans.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I think every single set of games over the last two years I've heard people say "Now is not the time to mess about".
Always talking about bring new guys into the EPS, but so non-committal about actually playing them.
What is with English people and their refusal to drip feed young players from the bench?
We always end up having to drop someone (or a whole new team) right in it because we never take the opportunity to see how other players go.

I think you're letting your high estimations of Attwood and Kvesic get in the way here! I for one and most others on here have wanted Wade to become first choice for ages, and right now I want Johnny May to start against France with someone else who I can't decide yet - possibly Nowell if he's still playing so well by then. Most of us want Trinder thrown in against France too. Where players are clearly the form choice and the most talented options, yes they simply have to play!

Most people here are only cautioning against Kvesic because there's no valid argument for him to start the next game or even the game after that. Same goes for Attwood. We've built - and I emphasise this word because we have chopped and changed our pack over a few years now - a pack which we can't currently improve on just by selecting someone else. To chop and change now would be a mistake. The same is simply not true of our backs, and therefore it's a case of wait and see what happens and whether Lancaster does the right and brave thing.

We should always play the best players - and if that means blooding youngsters, fine.

 

[Peat]

There's a difference between the backs situation, where we need to start finding out what our first choice backline should look like yesterday, and the pack, where it would be nice to give some of the second choice/challengers some more gametime. I don't consider the first messing about, I do consider the latter that to a point. Particularly as our forwards are our point of strength. Also, I don't see the point in too much rotation as injury does it for us. I know there then becomes an argument of preparing for the injury, but I'd rather do that through developing a really strong team and level of confidence.

This said - Kvesic could very quickly become an essential England player if given the chance, and I'd rather have Attwood than Lawes.

Btw - Cane vs Kvesic - neither looked better than the other back then. The Kiwis are happy to pick Cane off of the back of a few good performances and a belief he is international quality. We are forcing Kvesic to jump through multiple domestic hoops. The Kiwis have the strength to absorb a few people proving they're not up to international rugby in the international arena. We, not so much. If Cane was magically English and Kvesic magically a Kiwi, then I think Kvesic would have more caps than Cane.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Atwood will be our benching lock unless Stuart suddenly decides to demote him - which would be mental.
Remember that Parling is out.

At the moment we know who our props and second rows are.
It would be nice to see what Webber is capable of at international level but it's not going to bother me too much as long as TY can stop being so precious about his throwing.
The only unforced change I really want to see is Kvesic coming in, preferably from the bench.

If we arent comfortable playing him now in the 6N against Scotland or Italy then when are we going to be?
In the WC?

Capped players from the 2011 JWC final:

England:

Owen Farrell - 20 caps
Christian Wade - 1 cap
Mako Vunipola - 13 caps
Joe Launchbury - 14 caps
Matt Kvesic - 2 caps
Marland Yarde - 2 caps

52 caps total

New Zealand:

Beauden Barrett - 16 caps
Francis Saili - 2 caps
Charles Piutau - 10 caps
Steven Luatua - 11 caps
Brodie Retallick - 24 caps
Sam Cane - 14 caps

77 caps total

So they play their U20's far more readily than we seem to.
What you'll also notice is that of NZ's 77caps, 39 (50%) were from the bench.
Of our 52, only 18 (34%) were from the bench.

 

[Peat]

Who do you drop Rats? Ben Morgan? Considering how poor Billy's fitness is, and how effective the twin battering ram thing has been, I'd be pretty loath to do that.

That said - ideally you want a flanker on the bench anyway - but then you need a flanker capable of playing 8.

edit: I am comfortable leaving out Kvesic until we need him and comfortable with dropping him in at the last moment when we do.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Yep.
Kvesic played much of his last season with Wuss at 8.


Bear in mind how Cane won his first cap... replacing Kieran Read at 8 after the half time break.

 

[Peat]

Sorry, let me clarify that. We need a flanker capable of playing 8 in the same manner as Bill & Ben. Which isn't any of them really.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Fearns.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Atwood will be our benching lock unless Stuart suddenly decides to demote him - which would be mental.
Remember that Parling is out.

At the moment we know who our props and second rows are.
It would be nice to see what Webber is capable of at international level but it's not going to bother me too much as long as TY can stop being so precious about his throwing.
The only unforced change I really want to see is Kvesic coming in, preferably from the bench.

If we arent comfortable playing him now in the 6N against Scotland or Italy then when are we going to be?
In the WC?

Capped players from the 2011 JWC final:

England:

Owen Farrell - 20 caps
Christian Wade - 1 cap
Mako Vunipola - 13 caps
Joe Launchbury - 14 caps
Matt Kvesic - 2 caps
Marland Yarde - 2 caps

52 caps total

New Zealand:

Beauden Barrett - 16 caps
Francis Saili - 2 caps
Charles Piutau - 10 caps
Steven Luatua - 11 caps
Brodie Retallick - 24 caps
Sam Cane - 14 caps

77 caps total

So they play their U20's far more readily than we seem to.
What you'll also notice is that of NZ's 77caps, 39 (50%) were from the bench.
Of our 52, only 18 (34%) were from the bench.

Part of what I take from that is how much I overlooked how many age grade/junior players make it through to the senior squad. Stupid really... but its also quite encouraging to see that it's not unusual desperation to be laying so many of our jwc 2011 guys - new zealand are doing it too despite the copious options they have.

Rats: I agree bout Webber but that's the tough thing Hartley is playing excellently and Youngs has been one of our top performrs this last year also one of the few to gain credit on tour for the lions and I think he showed how much he offers against Montpellier with some huge hits from his low centre of gravity and great support lines offered to his brother. I too want to see what Webber is capable of but it would be the dictionary definition of madness to shove him in with those two playing so well. Probability says that one of youngs or hartley will get injured in 2014 and webber will have his chance.

Peat - not sure what you're saying - that England should have played Kvesic more by now? Because tje idea that I get more generally is that you don't think that..

 

[Peat]

Peat - not sure what you're saying - that England should have played Kvesic more by now? Because tje idea that I get more generally is that you don't think that..

Yes/no.

My main point is NZ's situation is different, not that Kvesic is less talented.

I don't want to advance him simply for the sake of advancing him, but I do think he is sufficiently talented that arguably he should have been involved earlier.

edit: Having just seen Tallshort's post... 95pc of the time it's time for your best team. That's it. The moment something happens to make me think Kvesic is better than Robshaw/Wood, I'll want him in, regardless of timing.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Yes/no.

My main point is NZ's situation is different, not that Kvesic is less talented.

I don't want to advance him simply for the sake of advancing him, but I do think he is sufficiently talented that arguably he should have been involved earlier.

edit: Having just seen Tallshort's post... 95pc of the time it's time for your best team. That's it. The moment something happens to make me think Kvesic is better than Robshaw/Wood, I'll want him in, regardless of timing.

What could happen to make you think Kvesic is better than Robshaw or Wood that Kvesic actually has the power to decide? Basically you need one of the former to lose form before Kvesic gets a look in. We won't know how Kvesic performs in comparison to Robshaw/Wood without actually giving him a go. For all we know Kvesic could fit perfectly into the England team and strengthen our pack, which is already capable of worrying pretty much any other pack in the world.

It's as I said about England post 2003, the mentality was that we already had very good players in all positions so why try out new people? Because that first team may not always be available and you need to have backups and replacements. You talked about NZ having a strong team so they could feed players in, we did as well but the difference between us and NZ is we never fed new talent in. The result is that when much of the 2003 team left, England came crashing down. We are now doing exactly the same with our pack. They are good therefore there is no point in letting non-established players try. If we maintain this mentality then I guarentee that we will be screwing ourselves in the future when our current pack starts leaving and we have no alternatives because they never got any game time.

 

[Maverick1987]

What could happen to make you think Kvesic is better than Robshaw or Wood that Kvesic actually has the power to decide? Basically you need one of the former to lose form before Kvesic gets a look in. We won't know how Kvesic performs in comparison to Robshaw/Wood without actually giving him a go. For all we know Kvesic could fit perfectly into the England team and strengthen our pack, which is already capable of worrying pretty much any other pack in the world.

It's as I said about England post 2003, the mentality was that we already had very good players in all positions so why try out new people? Because that first team may not always be available and you need to have backups and replacements. You talked about NZ having a strong team so they could feed players in, we did as well but the difference between us and NZ is we never fed new talent in. The result is that when much of the 2003 team left, England came crashing down. We are now doing exactly the same with our pack. They are good therefore there is no point in letting non-established players try. If we maintain this mentality then I guarentee that we will be screwing ourselves in the future when our current pack starts leaving and we have no alternatives because they never got any game time.

I think it was quite unfortunate last time 5 or 6 of the 8 were similar age our pack at the moment are fairly spread out in age so they won't all go at the same time HOPEFULLY lol