[2013 EOYT] England

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Mate i'm not having a dig at England in the slightest.
That's quite a cheap comment from you to be honest. I'm just trying to be objective.

Walker and Elliot do not have what it takes. Tell me why you think they're good enough for England.
Yes they've shone some good form, but that shouldn't be enough to be selected for England. You should have real attributes that say you can add something at the top level.
There are a group of elite wingers in England and those two are nowhere near them and they never will be.
Even selecting them in the Saxons would just be a token call up to say to other aspiring players, "look all you have to do is play well at club level and you'll be selected, you don't actually have to be good enough".

Wait there's a big difference between two things you've said here: That they have shown good form but enough for England is completely correct. Don't disagree for a second with that. But that they are average premiership players? My ponit isn't that they are international quality, more that how can we know when they are both so young and thus far have done everything you could expect of them? We keep monitoring them and see if they play well and continue to improve. After that, professional rugby is about meeting each challenge as it arises, not about showing world class quality whilst your playing at premiership level at the age of 20. Playing well enough to be in a championship side is a step all professionals must take. The lydiates, Warburtons of this world were loaned out to smaller provincial sides and earned their salt that way. Getting a contract in the premiership level and matching the required proficiencies is a step you can't make until given the chance to play to that level. Then being given an international call and playing well, etc. Lots of guys have done this. Rugby at different levels isn't an entirely different game, it's about meeting each challenge as it comes and doing what is expected of you at each stage. Therefore to write people off after such a short time is wrong. As is sugegsting them for England.

 

[Big Ewis]

Well experimenting is that 50/50 ground.
Not that France should be considered the paradigm of experimenting the past 2 years because other sides react differently to change, but looking at a constantly new look French side and then a perhaps a bit lackluster England side but whose faces we at least all recognize from Tour to Tour to tournament with the occasional replacement (usually for injury, so out of necessity), England as usual more consistent and France on a roller coaster adventure.

Of course, I wish I knew England Rugby a little more for this post's sake, but England as someone's said sure could use a little bit of "provocation", sort of like a little sting to push things forward and force some change onto that backline and rejuvenate it. Wade and Yarde are out, and surely this alone must've been about 10 pages alone on this thread, the winger thing, but England can rebound from that and look for some of the uncapped "nobodies" who can totally play and Prem fans know would make nice contributions at int'l level in a red n white jersey.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Well Big Ewis you've hit upon the real conundrum which is that on one hand the England coaches have felt able and willing to experiment with younger exciting guys in the forwards, whilst on the other being completely unwilling to do so in the backs. Which must lead me to the conclusion that the coaches genuinely think that bunch of backs are our best players still.

Or alternatively that they think it less risky to have an inexperienced pack than an inexperienced backline - which I would completely disagree with.

Both England and France have indeed experimented though I'd say England have done so within more rational grounds a lot of the time : both sides have brought in lots of new faces (England not so much in the backs). Is the difference that Englands experimentation has been more successfully, or simply that France have more depth/options they need to get through? Or both?!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It's laughable that names like Elliot and Walker are being mentioned. They're above average club players at best. You guys really should have higher standards than that.

......eh?

We're saying that they're good prospects for the future. They're both 21ish, noone's claiming they're the finished deal, or should be starting in the world cup.

 

[Aedaphon]

Even though the back line is a rather sorry sight, we seem to have settled the pack issue fairly well. Apart from the lack of depth at front row (despairing about Corbs' perpetual injuries), we have solid second and back row choices.

Given the state we were in not all that long ago, I can live with that. Even then, when you look at the players who were likely to be included before injury (Tuilagi, Wade, Yarde, [Foden]), I wouldn't actually complain too much about the potential for our backline. Now it just comes down to praying that we choose a team that has some go-forward in the backline instead of relying on the boot to win us games.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Mate i'm not having a dig at England in the slightest.
That's quite a cheap comment from you to be honest. I'm just trying to be objective.

Walker and Elliot do not have what it takes. Tell me why you think they're good enough for England.
Yes they've shone some good form, but that shouldn't be enough to be selected for England. You should have real attributes that say you can add something at the top level.
There are a group of elite wingers in England and those two are nowhere near them and they never will be.
Even selecting them in the Saxons would just be a token call up to say to other aspiring players, "look all you have to do is play well at club level and you'll be selected, you don't actually have to be good enough".

Jamie Elliot played England under 18 and under 20. He captained his school team at Bedford where he was born.

He is only 21 and so far has earned his stripes and is now starting in one of the top teams in Europe.

You my friend don't know anything about young players it seems. What more can you ask from a 21 year old winger? Saying he will never make it is based on what evidence?

Please enlighten us to your superior knowledge as to why he won't make it at international level in the future?

 

[Maverick1987]

Jamie Elliot played England under 18 and under 20. He captained his school team at Bedford where he was born.

He is only 21 and so far has earned his stripes and is now starting in one of the top teams in Europe.

You my friend don't know anything about young players it seems. What more can you ask from a 21 year old winger? Saying he will never make it is based on what evidence?

Please enlighten us to your superior knowledge as to why he won't make it at international level in the future?

He's welsh he didn't know domestic rugby existed . He thought we just found walker and Elliott playing in a park somewhere with some mates lol

 

[Maverick1987]

It's laughable that names like Elliot and Walker are being mentioned. They're above average club players at best. You guys really should have higher standards than that.

Rhodri jones is your second choice TH . You should really have higher standards than that plus you have stuck by Rhys Priestland despite him being garbage for 2 years . Elliott and walker are not average club players either they both start in 2 of the best clubs in England .
You rock up here bringing all your rubbish and uneducated comments pretending you know plenty about English rugby and ending up making a fool of yourself lol

 

[Peat]

Re Scrum-halves

Ragerancher - Who would you play as England scrum-half then? I can't think of a single player I would definitely place my faith at international level in. None of them have the full consistency and skillset. If that's not deficient I don't know what is.

j'nuh - Completely disagree; Leicester play some of the best rugby in the Premiership at times and look at Care at Quins - he hasn't progressed as desired either.

Re Walker/Elliot - Uhm, actually, I'm not going to comment, as its just ridiculous. Particularly as England's elite wings are all raw kids like these two anyway.

 

[Maverick1987]

Re Scrum-halves

Ragerancher - Who would you play as England scrum-half then? I can't think of a single player I would definitely place my faith at international level in. None of them have the full consistency and skillset. If that's not deficient I don't know what is.

j'nuh - Completely disagree; Leicester play some of the best rugby in the Premiership at times and look at Care at Quins - he hasn't progressed as desired either.

Re Walker/Elliot - Uhm, actually, I'm not going to comment, as its just ridiculous. Particularly as England's elite wings are all raw kids like these two anyway.

First point - I'd pick whoever is playing best for club at the time probably . I'm a bit biased towards Youngs probably but don't know if I trust any of the 3 100%

Second point - didn't Leicester score the most tries last year out of the whole league ?

Third point - probably a good thing to ignore this one lol welshglorysupporter won't understand what you mean if you talk about anything but the last decade of 6 nations

 

[ratsapprentice]

Just a quick point on Nowell and Watson (and May to a lesser extent) - Lancaster will probably like the fact that they play as FB often.
We know he wants his wingers to have a FB's skillset.

 

[Maverick1987]

Just a quick point on Nowell and Watson (and May to a lesser extent) - Lancaster will probably like the fact that they play as FB often.
We know he wants his wingers to have a FB's skillset.

Oh definitely ! That's my one shining light that may let us see the back of Alex Goode lol

 

[Peat]

Just a quick point on Nowell and Watson (and May to a lesser extent) - Lancaster will probably like the fact that they play as FB often.
We know he wants his wingers to have a FB's skillset.

Think Elliot's played FB a few times too, although not as much as the others. Shame Ross Chisholm can't take two steps without getting injured.

 

[Big Ewis]

Is the difference that Englands experimentation has been more successfully, or simply that France have more depth/options they need to get through? Or both?!

well although England has clearly been a lot more successful than France globally throughout 2012 and 2013 in terms of results, I'm not sure one could say "England's experimentation was better/more efficient than France's".

I think England's gameplan is so straightforward and to-the-point and consistent that it really doesn't matter who you use to fill the slots 1 to 15 just as long as they're about world class, little bit below - little bit above, and they play with intensity and pride for 65min or 15 if they're coming off the bench.

The only time, recently, I've felt England have truly *experimented* was last summer when the baabaas came to Twickenham. I saw athletic wingers on both ends, I saw an attacking young 10 in Burns, I saw slick back-line combinations and just things that were completely outside England's usual gameplan.

So I think as a whole France *experiment* in the real, dangerous sense of the term in that it's up to the individual player to show something on his own; while England already have a more limiting/guided plan for the youngsters they bring in and the insertion goes more smoothly and with less elusive/volatile effects on the long term.
A recent example of that was the 2013 EOYT for us. We were literally waiting on a young rookie Sofiane Guitoune to deliver based on personal exploit (best try-scorer of the Top14), and all eyes were on him during his first match against Tonga. So that's within a Tour we make a change, after our first November test against NZ. Sure enough he won MOTM and scored a try in the first 10'. Not that he was heralded as our savior or anything but we thought we needed a finisher since all year long we'd struggled with completing plays.
But that's another subject of its own, this is the England thread.

 

[welshglory]

Jamie Elliot played England under 18 and under 20. He captained his school team at Bedford where he was born.

He is only 21 and so far has earned his stripes and is now starting in one of the top teams in Europe.

You my friend don't know anything about young players it seems. What more can you ask from a 21 year old winger? Saying he will never make it is based on what evidence?

Please enlighten us to your superior knowledge as to why he won't make it at international level in the future?

Not big enough, not fast enough, not skilful enough basically simply not good enough. He's just a very meh player from what i've seen. No potential

This is coming from someone who mostly watches the premiership and welsh pro 12 games (not the Dragons).

F*& off Maverick you're now turning this into an England v Wales thing you mug. It's almost like i've insulted the whole of English rugby by saying these two players are average. REALLY? Calm down a second and have a jammy doughnut

I just have a really strong opinion that Walker and Elliot are not good enough and never will be. I've watched them both play for Quins and Saints at premiership and heineken cup level.

 

[welshglory]

Rhodri jones is your second choice TH . You should really have higher standards than that plus you have stuck by Rhys Priestland despite him being garbage for 2 years . Elliott and walker are not average club players either they both start in 2 of the best clubs in England .
You rock up here bringing all your rubbish and uneducated comments pretending you know plenty about English rugby and ending up making a fool of yourself lol

[TABLE="class: sortable wikitable jquery-tablesorter"]
<tbody>[TR="class: vcard agent"]
[TD="align: left"]Paul Diggin used to start for the Saints as well.
[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

 

[welshglory]

For the record i think incredibly highly of Watson, Nowell, Wade, Yarde, Benjamin etc... a.k.a players who have pace, size and skill

This isn't some England v Wales dick swinging contest so please don't make it into one.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Not big enough, not fast enough, not skilful enough basically simply not good enough. He's just a very meh player from what i've seen. No potential

This is coming from someone who mostly watches the premiership and welsh pro 12 games (not the Dragons).

F*& off Maverick you're now turning this into an England v Wales thing you mug. It's almost like i've insulted the whole of English rugby by saying these two players are average. REALLY? Calm down a second and have a jammy doughnut

I just have a really strong opinion that Walker and Elliot are not good enough and never will be. I've watched them both play for Quins and Saints at premiership and heineken cup level.

So an average wing will have played England under 18 and under 20?

An average wing will start at the top 2 clubs in the premiership at the moment?

Why is it that every time a welsh person comes on these forums it's to be negative about something English?

Can we not ban them from commenting on English threads? I don't go on the welsh ones and mouth off about players I know nothing about!

Why don't they just stick to what they know.....which is **** all about English rugby

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Not big enough, not fast enough, not skilful enough basically simply not good enough. He's just a very meh player from what i've seen. No potential

This is coming from someone who mostly watches the premiership and welsh pro 12 games (not the Dragons).

F*& off Maverick you're now turning this into an England v Wales thing you mug. It's almost like i've insulted the whole of English rugby by saying these two players are average. REALLY? Calm down a second and have a jammy doughnut

I just have a really strong opinion that Walker and Elliot are not good enough and never will be. I've watched them both play for Quins and Saints at premiership and heineken cup level.

I just....can't.

 

[Cartersos]

Regardless of his motives, I'm inclined to agree with welshglory, to a certain extent, when it comes to walker and Elliot. Their both promising players but I don't feel they are quite ready to be back ups YET, and without the injuries to yards/wade I doubt we would even be mentioning them
I hope they are both named in the Saxons but don't want them near the full side just yet.
Wade, yarde Watson and Nowell are obviously our elite pool and the future, and are either younger then Elliot and walker or the same age but are obviously a higher class regardless of playing experience and their younger years. With a full compliment of the aforementioned players available, can you honestly see them winning many, if any caps?


In terms of selection, I think the forwards more or less pick themselves, although the inclusion of Ewers might add some much needed ball carrying off the bench- couldn't think of anyone I'd like to tackle less after 60 mins of rugby- his carrying reminds me of Alberts.
Also, quite a few second rows are performing at a high level and putting their hands up for selection. This, in my opinion, is our main area of strength; selection here could be interesting in terms of back ups to lawes/launch.

Backs: I can only echo most posters sentiments on Goode, Ashton and strettle and hopefully Lancaster has had enough of them too.
I'd still quite like to see how Burrell could adapt to 13 alongside 36. However, With that being a little experimental, I'd pick 36 or Eastmond at 12 and at 13 .....meh, no one is grabbing that jersey for me I suppose Trinder or Joseph for now.


Getting a little exited waiting for tomorrow now, hopefully Lancaster doesn't spoil this with a depressing, predictable selection!

Peace.