[England] Post-6N/Pre-RWC Player Watch

[Peat]

Of course, it's the last time anyone in the squad played competitive rugby, it's the best indication we've got.

Are you saying form during the last season should be completely irrelevant to Lancaster's decisions?

Why should it be relevant?

Form, by definition, is of the present. Last season's in the past. If you're saying last season is the best indication we have of what form they're in, then I'd have to say a) No it isn't and b) If it really is, so what? It's such a poor indicator that it's worthless, even if it's the best indicator.

I mean, they've gone on holiday, they've done a gruelling pre-season, they've spent... I forget how long in the England environment, and they haven't played competitive rugby in three months or so. The idea that they're in the same form now as they were at the end of the season just doesn't make sense. It makes about as much sense as basing Premiership final predictions on which teams were doing well during the Six Nations.

In any case, as this stage, the best indication there is to how the players are performing at the moment is how they're doing in training. That may have some limitations, but it is of the present.

So, yeah, I think form last season should be absolutely irrelevant. It is about who is going to contribute most to England in the next couple of months; not who was contributing most to their clubs in the past.

 

[j'nuh]

Why should it be relevant?

Form, by definition, is of the present. Last season's in the past. If you're saying last season is the best indication we have of what form they're in, then I'd have to say a) No it isn't and b) If it really is, so what? It's such a poor indicator that it's worthless, even if it's the best indicator.

I mean, they've gone on holiday, they've done a gruelling pre-season, they've spent... I forget how long in the England environment, and they haven't played competitive rugby in three months or so. The idea that they're in the same form now as they were at the end of the season just doesn't make sense. It makes about as much sense as basing Premiership final predictions on which teams were doing well during the Six Nations.

In any case, as this stage, the best indication there is to how the players are performing at the moment is how they're doing in training. That may have some limitations, but it is of the present.

So, yeah, I think form last season should be absolutely irrelevant. It is about who is going to contribute most to England in the next couple of months; not who was contributing most to their clubs in the past.

I think it's crazy that you're discounting a year of form. Form is like a child's height. Over the course of years, sure, it's fairly unpredictable. But over a year/a few months? The tallest will generally still be the tallest and the smallest will generally still be the smallest, even if there are a few growth spurts here and there.

So in all likelihood, Cole is still our best tighthead, Joseph is still our best centre, Morgan and Vunipola are still just about neck-and-neck, Launchbury and Lawes are probably the two you want in the second row etc.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

So judgement day for 9 of the players in the squad. I think the announcement will come out at 6pm today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...-expecting-no-backlash-from-axed-players.html

England coach's key selection criteria

Performances in training

Chris Robshaw was infamously overlooked for the 2011 World Cup under previous head coach Martin Johnson despite being the squad's outstanding performer in training.

Form over the past 12 months

Lancaster's much referenced "credit in the bank" built up by previous performances in an England shirt.

What is your international credibility?

How does a player measure up to their opposite numbers on the international stage?

Have you got world-class positional skills?

Scrummaging for a prop, tackling for a flanker, goalkicking for fly-half etc.

Have you got a physical point of difference?

The attribute that distinguishes a player from his peers.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Still calling it as:

Mullan
Webber
Kruis
Kvesic
Easter
Dickson
Eastmond
Twelvetrees
Ashton

But I would put
Ashton/Yarde
And
Webber/LCD down now

 

[Raggs]

Burns' form wasn't exactly stellar in the AP before the 1st NZ test, and yet he had a blinder. This is months later, hopefully far better condition, perhaps with some ****les recovered from etc.

I'd not be thinking anyone would go above Cole/Launch/Lawes etc, because on top form, those 3 are better than anything anyone else has shown. However, someone like Croft? On top form he's world class, and could easily displace Hask/Wood in the 6 shirt.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Burns' form wasn't exactly stellar in the AP before the 1st NZ test, and yet he had a blinder. This is months later, hopefully far better condition, perhaps with some ****les recovered from etc.

I'd not be thinking anyone would go above Cole/Launch/Lawes etc, because on top form, those 3 are better than anything anyone else has shown. However, someone like Croft? On top form he's world class, and could easily displace Hask/Wood in the 6 shirt.

Who's Burns again? He's totally slipped off the radar recently- media and England. The arrival of Ford, Slade and the resurgence of Cipriani has just made him so far removed, but he was starting just a year ago (with Ford injured and Farrell unavailable in fairness). Mental.

I think it's mental to ignore most recent form- even if that's a few months ago. It's less of an influence than if it was more recently, but it can't be discounted. This is an impossible argument until we can distinguish form and permanent talent/class though.

 

[Raggs]

I wouldn't suggest completely ignoring recent form, but I'd not ignore what players have also shown they are capable of in the past. Personally I thought Webber was our best hooker on the NZ tour, and one of very few in our pack actually clearing our rucks effectively.

 

[Peat]

I think it's crazy that you're discounting a year of form. Form is like a child's height. Over the course of years, sure, it's fairly unpredictable. But over a year/a few months? The tallest will generally still be the tallest and the smallest will generally still be the smallest, even if there are a few growth spurts here and there.

So in all likelihood, Cole is still our best tighthead, Joseph is still our best centre, Morgan and Vunipola are still just about neck-and-neck, Launchbury and Lawes are probably the two you want in the second row etc.

I knew all edit: most of that before last season started though and I knew it from watching a better standard of rugby than the Premiership.

Their form is what they're doing right now. Their ability is what they've been doing over their entire careers and ideally demonstrated in international rugby. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a good reason why the domestic form - and I am talking about domestic form here, although I'm also dubious about international form - of the last twelve months would be more important than training today and consistently demonstrated ability.

One place where it's useful is measuring ability for those returning from injuries - Corbs probably hasn't hit his peak, Fazlet (who I don't think would be selected based on international form in last 12 months) is probably fine. But that might be off after a pre-season anyway. Another is players breaking into the team - but performance in the friendlies will be the final decider there.

People can say it's mental all they like - I'd rather someone told me why it should influence selection because I really don't see why. Again, domestic form only.

 

[Raggs]

Corbs is an interesting one. There has been major changes to how the scrum is handled, and major changes in his physique, since he last hit his peaks, and for me that means he has to show those peaks anew, rather than rely on what he's shown in the past.

As for domestic form, it can display what peaks a player can now operate at, and significantly, if it's a long term adjustment in their attitude and skillset, or merely a few flashes in the pan. So whilst I'd not be too worried if a proven international wasn't going so well in domestic form, I would still be interested if an international (but perhaps 2nd choice) was showing an even higher level of skill than previously in domestic competition.

Lancaster has tended to wait until a player has a full season of very good domestic form, and then a good start to a second season, before calling up a player. Cips, Eastmond, Joseph etc all had fantastic seasons, but weren't picked, once they showed that same form again then they were given the chance (same with Wade, till he hit injury at the worst time possible).

 

[Every Time Ref]

I knew all edit: most of that before last season started though and I knew it from watching a better standard of rugby than the Premiership.

Their form is what they're doing right now. Their ability is what they've been doing over their entire careers and ideally demonstrated in international rugby. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a good reason why the domestic form - and I am talking about domestic form here, although I'm also dubious about international form - of the last twelve months would be more important than training today and consistently demonstrated ability.

One place where it's useful is measuring ability for those returning from injuries - Corbs probably hasn't hit his peak, Fazlet (who I don't think would be selected based on international form in last 12 months) is probably fine. But that might be off after a pre-season anyway. Another is players breaking into the team - but performance in the friendlies will be the final decider there.

People can say it's mental all they like - I'd rather someone told me why it should influence selection because I really don't see why. Again, domestic form only.

First of all I never said domestic form, I'm not arguing that a player who's performed for England should be dropped on the basis of poor club form. I'm talking about overall form, both domestic and international - with international being much more important.

Webber was poor for both Bath and England last season. It's not the case that he performed well for one and poorly for the other, which could be put down to suiting a system better - whenever he actually played a proper game of rugby, he wasn't international standard.

Of course what happens in camp (which we can't see) is important, more time together as a squad than at any other time and the chance to maybe rest some little ****les and generally rest up a bit can make a difference. However, you are not selecting the players who train the best, but the players who play matches the best.

In Webber's case specifically, I don't think it's a question of familiarity with the system, for the reason I stated above; and I don't think it's a question of fatigue because the run of poor form was too long and consistent. So I find it hard to believe that a training camp could drastically turnaround his ability to perform on the pitch.

Also, I'd question how much "proven ability" he really has. Yes he's been good for England before, but he doesn't have a massive amount of credit in the bank. It's not like, for example, Mike Brown's run of poor form, which followed a long period of being one of our best players.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Lions was old scrum engagements, wasn't it?
That's the last time I remember thinking Corbisiero looked good.
Since then he's looked adequate, at best. He got completely taken apart, to ridiculous levels, by a 22 yr old in his first Aviva season, who has looked adequate in all his other games.
He's there on blind hope alone. I know injuries have played their part, but it's been years since he's shown he's worth his England spot.

 

[Raggs]

Webber looked very good in NZ over the summer. As I said, he was just about the only guy effectively clearing rucks, rather than sliding/bouncing off. Lineout was OK, putting in some good solid tackles too. Hartley and Youngs always had something over him (Youngs is better at what Webber does well, Hartley is very good at the stuff he doesn't), but Webber was always around the camp.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Webber looked very good in NZ over the summer. As I said, he was just about the only guy effectively clearing rucks, rather than sliding/bouncing off. Lineout was OK, putting in some good solid tackles too. Hartley and Youngs always had something over him (Youngs is better at what Webber does well, Hartley is very good at the stuff he doesn't), but Webber was always around the camp.

I think that's a good summary. He's not really good enough compared to the other hookers to be picked over anyone if they are on form and he isn't.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I agree with Raggs - Webber was very good in NZ.

 

[Peat]

Webber poor for England last season? Can't say I'd agree with that. I mean, all round debacle against Samoa aside (in which the lineout was one of the better things), he barely played - hence me assuming you were on about domestic form.

And feel free to question his proven ability - I wouldn't, but each to their own - but that doesn't come down to last season either. Personally I think he's yet to let England down and has had some very good games over a prolonged time period. But if people want to exclude him on his international record, fine - it's at least a sensible thing to look at.

p.s. Corbs came back from injury and played under the new scrum laws and nothing was said once. He came back from this one looking physically different and struggled. The physical side of it appears to be the big issue and has put me in a lot of doubt over him where previously I was iron-cast. Will be very interesting to see how he looks now - I wouldn't be downplaying Francis though, it's been clear for a while he's a big scrummager.

 

[Maverick1987]

Webber poor for England last season? Can't say I'd agree with that. I mean, all round debacle against Samoa aside (in which the lineout was one of the better things), he barely played - hence me assuming you were on about domestic form.

And feel free to question his proven ability - I wouldn't, but each to their own - but that doesn't come down to last season either. Personally I think he's yet to let England down and has had some very good games over a prolonged time period. But if people want to exclude him on his international record, fine - it's at least a sensible thing to look at.

p.s. Corbs came back from injury and played under the new scrum laws and nothing was said once. He came back from this one looking physically different and struggled. The physical side of it appears to be the big issue and has put me in a lot of doubt over him where previously I was iron-cast. Will be very interesting to see how he looks now - I wouldn't be downplaying Francis though, it's been clear for a while he's a big scrummager.

I'm undecided on Francis . He made me think he could be the next Adam Jones against Northampton and then got picked to pieces by Mullan . I just don't know about him yet ...

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

I'm undecided on Francis . He made me think he could be the next Adam Jones against Northampton and then got picked to pieces by Mullan . I just don't know about him yet ...

There was some suggestion that his scrummaging quality was just down to his weight, meaning he could be good in the loose, or the scrum, but not both. Not sure how true that is.

EDIT: Actually, at a stone more than Mako (still irritated Vinny as a nickname for him hasn't caught on yet, come onnn, Binny, Vinny, it's perfect- even if it should be Minny) I'd be impressed if he was any use in the loose at all, beyond tight carries.

 

[ratsapprentice]

He's 140kg and not in great condition - in order to be of use outside the scrum at international level he is going to have to lose a fair bit of weight.
He may not rely a whole lot on his mass as a scrummager, I find that unlikely though, given his style of scrummaging.

IMO he's going to either need to stay as large as he is to remain as effective a scrummager, or he's going to get in better condition and lose (not necessarily all) his scrummaging ability.

 

[Maverick1987]

Looks like Ashton is on his way

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ru...ngland-look-set-Semesa-Rokoduguni-chance.html

Re: Francis I believe he got absolutely smashed by Vunipola and Ayerza . The best performance I've seen of him was THAT performance against Northampton against an unfit and out of sorts Corbs . I'll reserve my full judgment until he's able to push some of the top players around .

I just don't see anything in him that tells me he is going to be a better player than Brookes or Lee . He would have struggled to get into the England team especially with Paul Hill likely to burst onto the scene soon enough . He's only been picked for Wales as back up to Sam Lee because the depth is poor there

 

[yaboyjj]

Seems like Lanky has have a change of mind, and is in fact keeping 36 in the squad- obviously the 12 position is worrying him :lol:
That being said, I'd probably take 36 over Burrell and Burgess.
Soo, Farrell, Barritt, Burgess, Slade, 36 and Burrell all potentially needing time in the warmups at 12 to press their case :huh: