[2015 Six Nations] England

[j'nuh]

No one else in the '7 shirt' but could easily see a more 'traditional openside' type or whatever in the 6 shirt. Seeing as we play two flankers rather than defined blind and open.

IMO is Haskell doesn't start after the season he's had it will be a crying shame.

Yeah, I never got why everyone gets so hung up on the feeling that the "fetcher must wear 7 on their back", as if guys like Kvesic would lose all desire to go near a breakdown if they packed down on the blindside.

 

[TheSaffycen]

My squad would be
1. Corbisiero/ Marler/ Mullan
2. Hartley/ George/ Webber
3. Wilson/ Brookes/ Cole
4. Attwood/ Kruis
5. Parling/ Kitchener
6. Robshaw/ Ewers
7. Kvesic/ Haskell
8. Vunipola/ Evans (Glos guy ?)
9. Care/ Youngs/ Wigglesworth
10. Ford/ Farrell/ Cipriani
11. May/ Watson
12. Barritt/ Eastmond
13.Joseph/ Burrell
14.Rokoduguni/ Nowell
15. Brown/ Foden

I'm very much a horses for courses kind of guy. In the world cup no one will play every game, so you have to have a variety of guys who can slot in. That's why I wouldwselect Barritt over 36 because he can step in without a run of games to get to his best.

 

[yaboyjj]

Manu Tuilagi likely out for the entire six nations:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...iss-Englands-entire-Six-Nations-campaign.html
So that's Englands three best players already out for the entire tournament (Launch, Tuilagi, Morgan) and another brutal Euro weekend to come.

At what point is Lancaster going start to build a centre partnership without bearing reference to how they would work with Tuilagi back at 13?
This is potentially a very big bit of news for guys like Joseph and Slade, as they may not be make-shift options for the first part of the tournament anymore but rather have a real opportunity to make the 13 shirt their own... there are no guarantees that Tuilagi is going to be fit for the world cup at this rate and it would be a dangerous game to suppose that he will be (torn pec last year, long groin injury this year etc).

So.. expected centres for Wednesdays squad?

my expectations are: Burrell, Barritt, Eastmond, Joseph
with Barritt/Joseph to start in Cardiff

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

It makes me unhappy to talk about the centre pairing as Lancaster won't choose the best players and then in the World Cup will parachute back in tuilagi who still isn't that complete a player at all.

It has to be burrell and JJ. Barritt is a glorified back row.

 

[Tony Manx]

Manu Tuilagi likely out for the entire six nations:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...iss-Englands-entire-Six-Nations-campaign.html
So that's Englands three best players already out for the entire tournament (Launch, Tuilagi, Morgan) and another brutal Euro weekend to come.

At what point is Lancaster going start to build a centre partnership without bearing reference to how they would work with Tuilagi back at 13?
This is potentially a very big bit of news for guys like Joseph and Slade, as they may not be make-shift options for the first part of the tournament anymore but rather have a real opportunity to make the 13 shirt their own... there are no guarantees that Tuilagi is going to be fit for the world cup at this rate and it would be a dangerous game to suppose that he will be (torn pec last year, long groin injury this year etc).

So.. expected centres for Wednesdays squad?

my expectations are: Burrell, Barritt, Eastmond, Joseph
with Barritt/Joseph to start in Cardiff

Shame but may work to England's advantage. There is little doubt that teams over the last number of months since he stopped playing have been selected on basis that Tuilangi was a shoe in and let us see who will be able to play with him on his return!

NZ did much the same with Carter and suffered when he had to miss the last RWC.

This way Lancaster has been forced into accepting his absence and, with so little time left, has to play the best centre partnership available in order to get some kind of string of victories rather than merely trying out combinations!

If he does find that they gel, Manu might be then used as impact player if he comes back in time.

 

[goodNumber10]

Manu Tuilagi likely out for the entire six nations:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...iss-Englands-entire-Six-Nations-campaign.html
So that's Englands three best players already out for the entire tournament (Launch, Tuilagi, Morgan) and another brutal Euro weekend to come.

At what point is Lancaster going start to build a centre partnership without bearing reference to how they would work with Tuilagi back at 13?
This is potentially a very big bit of news for guys like Joseph and Slade, as they may not be make-shift options for the first part of the tournament anymore but rather have a real opportunity to make the 13 shirt their own... there are no guarantees that Tuilagi is going to be fit for the world cup at this rate and it would be a dangerous game to suppose that he will be (torn pec last year, long groin injury this year etc).

So.. expected centres for Wednesdays squad?

my expectations are: Burrell, Barritt, Eastmond, Joseph
with Barritt/Joseph to start in Cardiff

Would you honestly parachute Slade into the squad 7 months out from a world cup? I'm all for giving youth a chance, and firmly believe if your good enough your old enough, but while Slades quality he hasn't shown anything that marks him out as anything other than promising or in a position to displace Tuilagi or Burrell - and i do wonder if his longterm future is actually at 10 or 12.

For me I think the likeliest scenario is "Brad at 12 Burrell at 13", i can deal with that...

I think they see Burrell as the back up to Tuilagi and have started to develop that. He would have started the AI's if not for injury, and once Barritt was in i think they just went for consistency as he was actually playing quite well, but i think they see him as a 12 and a stop gap 13.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Really the time for trying out more different options was the 6N's last year imo. This 6N's he needs to be playing as close to the starting 23 for the world cup as possible.

 

[goodNumber10]

exactly.

So to me it's who will be our next two 13's if Tuilagi doesn't recover - and burrell seems to be first in line, which if is the case I'd put joseph in as 3rd.

It's hard to ignore Burrell now Tuilagi is injured - we really missed having a 13 who could get us to the gainline - Burrells first carry against New Zealand in the summers 2nd test is everything we are missing from our backline - it leads directly to Yardes try in that it flags him up as athreat and holds cruden the second time around with his dummy run.

 

[Willodell100]

Decent article from the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/bl...-england-rugby-six-nations-rfu-armitage-wales

I tend to agree with a lot of what is said in the piece relating to our midfield but not so sure about Armitage even though I think he is a very good player.

For me a midfield of Barritt & Burrell is limited. It not only limits George Ford but also our back three. Burrell is good at offloading out of a tackle but other than that both have pretty average passing ability and neither have real vision. Both are 'truck it up' centres that look for contact rather than space. Defensively strong but I would argue so are all our centres.

Also it would be yet another untested midfield combination.

I say give the bath centre combination a go as it not only has the distinct advantage of playing together week in week out but also they know the probable starting fly half extremely well too. That in itself is a massive advantage. Apart from anything else both Wastnond & Joseph are in soarkling form. The same can be said for Burrell who admittedly has been consistent for the Saints but Barritt has never been more than a steady eddie. A good squad man and excellent for mf but that is all.

 

[goodNumber10]

Decent article from the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/bl...-england-rugby-six-nations-rfu-armitage-wales

I tend to agree with a lot of what is said in the piece relating to our midfield but not so sure about Armitage even though I think he is a very good player.

For me a midfield of Barritt & Burrell is limited. It not only limits George Ford but also our back three. Burrell is good at offloading out of a tackle but other than that both have pretty average passing ability and neither have real vision. Both are 'truck it up' centres that look for contact rather than space. Defensively strong but I would argue so are all our centres.

Also it would be yet another untested midfield combination.

I say give the bath centre combination a go as it not only has the distinct advantage of playing together week in week out but also they know the probable starting fly half extremely well too. That in itself is a massive advantage. Apart from anything else both Wastnond & Joseph are in soarkling form. The same can be said for Burrell who admittedly has been consistent for the Saints but Barritt has never been more than a steady eddie. A good squad man and excellent for mf but that is all.

It's hard to argue against Joseph, he's been brilliant, but he won't play, nor will Eastmond even if they are named - England need to start getting over the gain line again and they are tackle line players not gain line players. Which is why BB and LB are the likeliest 12/13 combo.

I really disagree that Armitage should be included in either the 6nations or the World Cup squad, and Lancaster is right to leave him out - he knew the rules and left anyway, he can lump it for all i care - besides he's getting an absolute armchair ride at Toloun and he won't get that at international level.

 

[Willodell100]

I hear what you're saying about gain line but that's exactly what our forwards having been producing over the past 12-18 months. They have given our backline front foot ball. Yes I agree we do need the odd crash ball but that's can be easily replicated by one of our back rowers.

What we really need and what was obviously lacking in the autumn was the skills in the backline to turn all that front foot ball into tries. Our conversion rate was appalling when in the oppositions 22 and I would suggest a lot of that was to do with poor handling skills and decision making. Yes it didn't help all the chopping and changing going on by SL but it simply wasn't good enough against the best. And we only beat Australia because our set piece was so dominant.

We might get away with it against Wales because of our dominant pack and set piece again but I'm not so sure against the Irish.

We really think we need to get out of this conservative defence obsessed mindset. Yes defence wins matches but JJ and KE are clearly good enough otherwise half the premiership and Toulouse would have found them out by now.

For me BOD summed it up on Rugby Tobight. Asked who he would not like to face in a white shirt and he said the Bath pair.

I know the reality will probably be different but I truly believe we have such a dominant pack that we don't need two massive 'smash it up' centres.

Either way I will be right behind however sticks on the shirt!

 

[Every Time Ref]

I hear what you're saying about gain line but that's exactly what our forwards having been producing over the past 12-18 months. They have given our backline front foot ball.

I'm not so sure I agree with this (and I know GN10 doesn't ... ) - They gave us a platform, in the sense of a really solid set piece to work off, but as a forward pack they didn't get us repeatedly over the gainline. The only ball carrier for most of the Autumn was Vunipola / Morgan, which in Vunipola's case at least made him very predictable, and there was time after time after time where one carry would be followed by forwards taking an age to recycle it, Care taking an age to pass to the next group and the next carrier takign it standing still and rumbling it up. What we lacked as much as midfield invention was real dynamic forward carrying power.

Care's poor form was a major part of this, as his delivery was agonisingly slow, but from what I've seen of Quins since the autumn he is playing a lot better, getting the ball away quickly and playing at a decent pace; maybe suggests his form is back, or maybe suggests the blame did not lie with him in the first place and was more to do with the quality of ball he was playing with.

I'd also like to see the forwards playing off Ford a lot more in the 6N, not just taking the ball from whoever plays nine. Firstly just because it's always better to vary the point of attack and stretch defences a little more in tight; and secondly because Ford is very, very good at this. Lancaster obviously told Ford to work on his tactical kicking and game control because that's the kind of ten he wants, and Ford did that and against Australia showed he can run that kind of game brilliantly. That's great, but having decided to play Ford Lancaster mustn't fail to use the skills which brought him to England's attention in the first place, including his short distribution game. People think of Bath and they think of the wide, flowing rugby which of course comes partly through Ford, but actually the real less noticed work Ford does is get Bath's forward runners hitting the gainline, sucking in defenders close for either himself or more often Eastmond to distribute wide to JJ et al.

 

[goodNumber10]

I hear what you're saying about gain line but that's exactly what our forwards having been producing over the past 12-18 months. They have given our backline front foot ball. Yes I agree we do need the odd crash ball but that's can be easily replicated by one of our back rowers.

What we really need and what was obviously lacking in the autumn was the skills in the backline to turn all that front foot ball into tries. Our conversion rate was appalling when in the oppositions 22 and I would suggest a lot of that was to do with poor handling skills and decision making. Yes it didn't help all the chopping and changing going on by SL but it simply wasn't good enough against the best. And we only beat Australia because our set piece was so dominant.

We might get away with it against Wales because of our dominant pack and set piece again but I'm not so sure against the Irish.

We really think we need to get out of this conservative defence obsessed mindset. Yes defence wins matches but JJ and KE are clearly good enough otherwise half the premiership and Toulouse would have found them out by now.

For me BOD summed it up on Rugby Tobight. Asked who he would not like to face in a white shirt and he said the Bath pair.

I know the reality will probably be different but I truly believe we have such a dominant pack that we don't need two massive 'smash it up' centres.

Either way I will be right behind however sticks on the shirt!

Heh! this has been well discussed on here so others might groan at the old ground we're going to cover here.

Personally I don't think our pack did generate front football in the AI's. I felt it was slow ponderous 10 metres behind the gain line ball. That was somewhat overcome with Morgan coming back into contention but you can't have only one ball carrier in the pack and none in the midfield.

I think you can get bye with average backs on go forward ball, but good backs can't play off slow ball. So personally i think England do have to go back to gain line breakers before they can hope to play expansive Rugby - if they have more ball carriers in the pack they can have people like Eastmond and Joseph, if they don't then they need a gain line center.

We shall see i suppose, but i have an inclination it will be the gainline players and not the tackle line players they go for.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Personally I don't think our pack did generate front football in the AI's.

...told ya

 

[goodNumber10]

I'm not so sure I agree with this (and I know GN10 doesn't ... ) - They gave us a platform, in the sense of a really solid set piece to work off, but as a forward pack they didn't get us repeatedly over the gainline. The only ball carrier for most of the Autumn was Vunipola / Morgan, which in Vunipola's case at least made him very predictable, and there was time after time after time where one carry would be followed by forwards taking an age to recycle it, Care taking an age to pass to the next group and the next carrier takign it standing still and rumbling it up. What we lacked as much as midfield invention was real dynamic forward carrying power.

Care's poor form was a major part of this, as his delivery was agonisingly slow, but from what I've seen of Quins since the autumn he is playing a lot better, getting the ball away quickly and playing at a decent pace; maybe suggests his form is back, or maybe suggests the blame did not lie with him in the first place and was more to do with the quality of ball he was playing with.

I'd also like to see the forwards playing off Ford a lot more in the 6N, not just taking the ball from whoever plays nine. Firstly just because it's always better to vary the point of attack and stretch defences a little more in tight; and secondly because Ford is very, very good at this. Lancaster obviously told Ford to work on his tactical kicking and game control because that's the kind of ten he wants, and Ford did that and against Australia showed he can run that kind of game brilliantly. That's great, but having decided to play Ford Lancaster mustn't fail to use the skills which brought him to England's attention in the first place, including his short distribution game. People think of Bath and they think of the wide, flowing rugby which of course comes partly through Ford, but actually the real less noticed work Ford does is get Bath's forward runners hitting the gainline, sucking in defenders close for either himself or more often Eastmond to distribute wide to JJ et al.

If they play off Ford they'll get much faster ball from the ruck, and pull the opposition defence wider - playing off 9 usually leads to a congested midfield.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Also, I think breaking the gainline requires less pure carrying power when you have a flyhalf playing right on it, like Ford. A specialist carrier like Vunipola should (on form) be able to break the gainline even if he runs from quite deep, what Ford can do is take the ball to the line and any reasonably big forward with a bit of leg drive and some support can cross it. Neither Attwood nor Wilson are big carriers for England but they both do a good line in unspectacular carries off Ford's shoulder for Bath.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

With foden injured Tait must be a step closer to England again?

He is younger than those 2.

 

[goodNumber10]

Also, I think breaking the gainline requires less pure carrying power when you have a flyhalf playing right on it, like Ford. A specialist carrier like Vunipola should (on form) be able to break the gainline even if he runs from quite deep, what Ford can do is take the ball to the line and any reasonably big forward with a bit of leg drive and some support can cross it. Neither Attwood nor Wilson are big carriers for England but they both do a good line in unspectacular carries off Ford's shoulder for Bath.

Ford or Farrell, either is fine, they both play flat enough - Ford gives the impression of travelling more with the ball.

The bigger issue is our ridiculous pod system that sees Marler et al stood at 1st receiver and trying to distribute from standing. If you're going to have forwards playing the one out pass gamethen they need to A: be moving B: be passing under pressure.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

With foden injured Tait must be a step closer to England again?

He is younger than those 2.

Doubt it - he's signed for a French club.
Flood was dropped from the entire England setup as soon as he did that.

 

[Every Time Ref]

C: have the hands for it.

Robshaw does, Launchbury maybe, I can't think of others. Actually Vunipola has good hands but I'm not expecting him to feature much. We're hardly New Zealand when it comes to ball-handling in the forwards, are we?