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

[McTallshort]

Can you clarify what a true open side is? As all those players in my mind are no called traditional open sides but that all have the characteristics of one

Oh dont start all that! Me and Rats always fall out when this subject comes up.

 

[goodNumber10]

I can see Burgess coming on the second half of the opening game. I can imagine Lancaster will have him under a microscope though.
If he plays well I think we will see more of him in the tournament, though if not, I can't see much of him after that game..

Honestly I think he is 2nd to wood, though if wood has an wiffy second match against Wales.. Well who knows for Slammin Sam..

The issue with SB is that i can't see them compromising their set piece to carry him - he's a ball carrying, man smashing 6 but they seem to like a tail jumper and they certainly won't weaken their scrum against the likes of Australia and Wales.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It's no secret that Lancaster et al really value a lineout option at 6.
It's why I'm surprised Itoje was dropped so early. He's almost tailor made to the Lancaster blindside model - massive workrate, valuable in the lineout, good in the maul etc.


The only thing that i can see, if Burgess makes the final cut, is some 6-2 benches, with Burgess covering both backrow and midfield.
Then again that'd only be viable if Cipriani travels as the third flyhalf instead of Slade (which I'm not so sure of). Otherwise Farrell/Slade will cover midfield from the field/bench

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Would rather Wood, Haskell and Burgess than Clark.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I don't think you're in the minority there

 

[McTallshort]

What is SL obsession with Clark? the blokes obviously unhinged and hes normally pretty keen on players behaviour.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

What is SL obsession with Clark? the blokes obviously unhinged and hes normally pretty keen on players behaviour.

The main problem I have with Clark (ignoring the elephant in the the room) is that he has 0 caps with no probability of getting any in the near future, but is in every squad, so we've still no idea what he'd be like at international level. He's also relatively old compared to Itoje, Kvesic, etc. The only real thing I can't get my head round with Lancaster.

As for Burgess, I think his inclusion will depend entirely on his performance in the warm up games (are they capped tests, btw?). He'll probably be on the bench for at least two I'd say.

 

[Peat]

The main problem I have with Clark (ignoring the elephant in the the room) is that he has 0 caps with no probability of getting any in the near future, but is in every squad, so we've still no idea what he'd be like at international level. He's also relatively old compared to Itoje, Kvesic, etc. The only real thing I can't get my head round with Lancaster.

As for Burgess, I think his inclusion will depend entirely on his performance in the warm up games (are they capped tests, btw?). He'll probably be on the bench for at least two I'd say.

This (although he'll still be perfectly able to go to the World Cup, he's not that old). It's utterly baffling that a man who has been around the squad constantly for three years hasn't even got onto the bench against Tier 2 opposition. What on earth is the point of it?

 

[goodNumber10]

yeah, Clarke is certainly one of the more Bizarre calls within the squad... I can't for the life of me thing whom he would even replace in a match day squad... maybe if Wood and Haskel are out he'd be a bench option?

(despite the obvious issues) he's a good player, but i've never sat and thought to myself "international"!

 

[goodNumber10]

England Running Burgess at Centre according to Mike Ford

http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-uni...-ford-backs-sam-burgess-to-shine-at-world-cup

that's worrying, but it also shows that England are not settled on their current 12's...

 

[ZeroTwo]

Or that having Farrell/Barritt/Burgess being able to play at inside centre gives you a whole variety of possible game plans. Having all three would make it possible to switch from territory orientated to defence or attack orientated very quickly which is a valuable weapon.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Or that having Farrell/Barritt/Burgess being able to play at inside centre gives you a whole variety of possible game plans. Having all three would make it possible to switch from territory orientated to defence or attack orientated very quickly which is a valuable weapon.

And which one would be the attack option?

 

[ZeroTwo]

And which one would be the attack option?

Burgess' offloading game. That's all I got....or Eastmond.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

And which one would be the attack option?

Is it depressing that of the three... probably Farrell?

 

[TobesHodges]

He will play Barritt at 12, he's to much of a warrior not to, especially when playing the big teams, we'll need to submit a bit of attack for defence, all out attacking backlines don't win test matches against the big teams.. Just look at Australia..

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

He will play Barritt at 12, he's to much of a warrior not to, especially when playing the big teams, we'll need to submit a bit of attack for defence, all out attacking backlines don't win test matches against the big teams.. Just look at Australia..

Yeah just look at new Zealand's attacking back line. It annoys people see players as attack or defensive players. What's wrong with slide at 12, brilliant attack and solid in defence. We don't have to settle for barritt who is a back row pretending to be a centre

 

[TobesHodges]

Yeah just look at new Zealand's attacking back line. It annoys people see players as attack or defensive players. What's wrong with slide at 12, brilliant attack and solid in defence. We don't have to settle for barritt who is a back row pretending to be a centre

I think your getting it all wrong mate, we wouldn't "settle" for Barritt.. Look at the New Zealand backline? You do know they have Conrad smith, he doesnt make 60m breaks, he hits everything that moves and is that steady rock in there midfield, like barritt..
South Africa have Jean de Villiers, Wales have Jaime Roberts, Ireland have always had someone like Darcy and Mcfadden to balance O'driscolls Attack.
When Australia were one of the best they had Stirling Mortlock, through the years every great team has had that Flanker centre, who will hit every tackle, every ruck, they may not throw wonder passes or run in 40m trys but they are solid and dependable..

So back up your ****.. Why would you think we are settling for Barritt? :box:

And actually the only complete player i would have at 12 would be Slade if he put on 2 stone (don't Sidestep the above because of this comment..)

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I think your getting it all wrong mate, we wouldn't "settle" for Barritt.. Look at the New Zealand backline? You do know they have Conrad smith, he doesnt make 60m breaks, he hits everything that moves and is that steady rock in there midfield, like barritt..
South Africa have Jean de Villiers, Wales have Jaime Roberts, Ireland have always had someone like Darcy and Mcfadden to balance O'driscolls Attack.
When Australia were one of the best they had Stirling Mortlock, through the years every great team has had that Flanker centre, who will hit every tackle, every ruck, they may not throw wonder passes or run in 40m trys but they are solid and dependable..

So back up your ****.. Why would you think we are settling for Barritt? :box:

And actually the only complete player i would have at 12 would be Slade if he put on 2 stone (don't Sidestep the above because of this comment..)

That is a terrible set of examples:

So Jamie Roberts the rock constantly breaks the game line and provides front foot ball, barritt doesn't.

D'arcy is again a player who can make breaks and also is better than barritt in attack.

Mortlock, constantly made yards.

Jean De Villiers again breaks the line constantly

And Conrad smith is not a defensive player at all. He creates space with passes, steps and has pace when needed as well as being a defensive rock.

The thing is all the other players are good in defence and attack. Barritt is only good in defence. It's bizarre you think any of the above are defensive players. Barritt has never given us front foot ball of those mentioned above.

 

[MrTea_32]

He will play Barritt at 12, he's to much of a warrior not to, especially when playing the big teams, we'll need to submit a bit of attack for defence, all out attacking backlines don't win test matches against the big teams.. Just look at Australia..

He'll play barritt at 12 if he wants a safe defensive game but Burgess will give you that aswell but with alot more aggression. Barritt has no attack where burgess is faster, good offload and a great decoy which may opens things up for JJ etc.

 

[ncurd]

Except Burgess was poor in Bath's backline at center and only seamed settled when he moved to the back row. Nothing I have seen from his time @ Bath makes me convinced in the slightest he should be our choice there.