England - Squad Announcement Thursday 27th

[Patchey]

Does anyone else feel uneasy about Russell Crowe congratulating Lancaster - ´you frigging champion, Lancaster´- on picking Burgess? I really hope the publicity around Burgess had no impact on Lancaster´s decision-making, but I can´t see what else it might have been based on, since Burrell played just as well against France, and has proven himself at premiership level, at least.

'Burrell played just as well against France'

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Innit. Its basically a lot of arguments over guys who are only going to play Uruguay.

Plenty of things I could say but it's going to be a decent 23 so lets get ready to rumble.

Probably, with the possible exception of the lock choices which have been made. Unlike our centres, all 5 of the locks who were in the mix are experienced with England and trusted at the level. If there was a perceived lack of grunt in the tight five after a few games, perhaps even a loss, Attwood could feasibly have come in to make a difference. So I think the choices which have been made in that department are quite likely to come back and bite Lancaster.

Otherwise, yes. Burgess is guaranteed to play against uruguary and unlikely to feature much elsewhere.
Cipriani also another one which may matter - I would have had him on the bench instead of Goode (who we know will definitey be in the 23) leaving Watson and at a stretch Cipriani to cover full-back. This would really have given us the potential to change a game from the bench.

Sadly, you'd have to be pretty insane to think that these are going to be our biggest headaches, given the state of our set-piece.
Hate to say it but you'd have to be both proud and blinkered to think that this England team can win this thing...

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

At any point in Lancaster's time (barring one night in December 2012...), the team I'd back to do well at this RWC would be the 2014 Six Nations team.
That set of performances was a solid starting point- solid setpiece and decent backs, strong at most things- that was, IMO completely derailed by the tour to New Zealand.

That clouded the waters and forced Lanky into conservative/mad, depending on opinion, choices to avoid an embarrassing tour- which he did, tbf, despite three losses.

 

[goodNumber10]

Does it matter anyway? At the end of the penalty kicking tournament New Zealand or South Africa will have won, why not play the final first and save us the hype?

because then it would be just like the rugby league world cup

 

[goodNumber10]

You are deluded if you think it is a more open comp than the RL World Cup.

obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Probably, with the possible exception of the lock choices which have been made. Unlike our centres, all 5 of the locks who were in the mix are experienced with England and trusted at the level. If there was a perceived lack of grunt in the tight five after a few games, perhaps even a loss, Attwood could feasibly have come in to make a difference. So I think the choices which have been made in that department are quite likely to come back and bite Lancaster.

Otherwise, yes. Burgess is guaranteed to play against uruguary and unlikely to feature much elsewhere.
Cipriani also another one which may matter - I would have had him on the bench instead of Goode (who we know will definitey be in the 23) leaving Watson and at a stretch Cipriani to cover full-back. This would really have given us the potential to change a game from the bench.

Sadly, you'd have to be pretty insane to think that these are going to be our biggest headaches, given the state of our set-piece.
Hate to say it but you'd have to be both proud and blinkered to think that this England team can win this thing...

The word "can" covers a very wide range of probability! Are you saying England actually "can't"? Maybe just semantics, but we really can win this tournament. Every team has flaws and I'd only name 3 teams which are actually unarguably better than us. We'd only need to beat two of those, at home, to win the tournament - stranger things have happened. Are we favourites? No. But it wouldn't be a shock, certainly not as big a shock as reaching the final in 2007, or France reaching the final in 2011.

On the set piece, the scrum will be fine - I think the France game will turn out to be an anomaly. It's the lineout we want to worry about, that hasn't been functioning for some time with a range of different throwers, jumpers and lifters - I don't see that sorting itself out quickly regardless of who plays hooker.

 

[msf]

Your emoticon doesn´t show up on my browser, Patchey, please attempt to convey your feelings with words.

Burrell actually played pretty well, yes he gave away a couple of daft penalties, one after a great tackle on the French full back, which is one more than Burgess did, but he carried well, and just as importantly, linked well with Joseph (with Joseph going to inside centre and Burrell running lines off him). I guess Lancaster thought, I didn´t quite manage a centre partnership that had played together 40 times, more like 6, so **** it, why not 0?

 

[goodNumber10]

there is a fundamental point in this, i suppose, do we just want to win the world cup or do we want to be the best team at the world cup?

I get the feeling the biggest frustration is that most of us don't believe we deserve to win the cup right now, rather are capable of winning it.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

The word "can" covers a very wide range of probability! Are you saying England actually "can't"? Maybe just semantics, but we really can win this tournament. Every team has flaws and I'd only name 3 teams which are actually unarguably better than us. We'd only need to beat two of those, at home, to win the tournament - stranger things have happened. Are we favourites? No. But it wouldn't be a shock, certainly not as big a shock as reaching the final in 2007, or France reaching the final in 2011.

On the set piece, the scrum will be fine - I think the France game will turn out to be an anomaly. It's the lineout we want to worry about, that hasn't been functioning for some time with a range of different throwers, jumpers and lifters - I don't see that sorting itself out quickly regardless of who plays hooker.

When I say can't, you're right, I obviously don't mean its impossible.
However, given that we could have entered this world cup, along with home advntage having all selections nailed down, that we should by now have a resilient set-piece and very settled combinations - we are comparatively in a disappointing position.
I am also comparing us to the other teams in this competition who have come to the boil at the right time (Ireland, Australia), those who look vastly improved (France) and those who were already the clear favourites (New Zealand).
Mostly, though, when I say we are unlikely to win the thing it's because of my lack of faith in the lineout and unease over the scrum. Our 3 hookers over the couple of games have looked shaky at best in the area that matters most.

- - - Updated - - -

there is a fundamental point in this, i suppose, do we just want to win the world cup or do we want to be the best team at the world cup?

I get the feeling the biggest frustration is that most of us don't believe we deserve to win the cup right now, rather are capable of winning it.

Completely this.

I guess my point is that given the time Lancaster and co have had together, to develop combinations and partnerships, to develop a style(to be fair I sort of think we've developed a way of playing), given home advantage, we almost could have been going into this competition saying that we should expect to win it. In reality I feel like we are simply one of half a dozen teams in with a shout.

 

[msf]

I agree with the poster above, not impossible, just quite unlikely - of course, if they win, the pro-Lancaster crowd will say it was odds-on, and if we don´t then the rest of us will say we never had a chance.

 

[Patchey]

When I say can't, you're right, I obviously don't mean its impossible.
However, given that we could have entered this world cup, along with home advntage having all selections nailed down, that we should by now have a resilient set-piece and very settled combinations - we are comparatively in a disappointing position.

Completely agree.

I just keep thinking back to the fact that, IMO, within the wider England set up there is the potential to build a world beating squad that is stop in all areas (well maybe not Hooker) 1-23 and has real depth and variety.

Not saying that such a squad could have been assembled in time for this World Cup. But we seem to be much further away from it that we should be.

 

[Peat]

there is a fundamental point in this, i suppose, do we just want to win the world cup or do we want to be the best team at the world cup?

I get the feeling the biggest frustration is that most of us don't believe we deserve to win the cup right now, rather are capable of winning it.

I would say that statement half-covers me.

I don't like our odds of winning it. I feel we have too big a history of ending up on the wrong side of a tight result recently to expect a different outcome here.

In fairness, given the injuries that have affected our cadre of players from circa 2011, and the situation at that time, that's not too surprising. I am both quite sympathetic for Lancaster and quite critical of Lancaster, something I believe possible as a logical position only due to the razor-thing margins at the top.

Here's hoping I've assessed the odds wrong.

 

[valley commando]

You've got a point. Burrell is exactly the sort of player to deal with the Welsh and Auz centres. I guess we'll see Barritt for both of them for definite, then Burgess for the easier (and it's not like it's a walkover at all) games against Fiji etc. Think Farrell might play against the Welsh for the same reason.

Yes you are right Fiji could be a banana skin, in fact George Smith reckons neither England nor Wales will get out of the group, I'd imagine he is trying to wind people up, but Fiji are not to be taken lightly.

- - - Updated - - -

Wales will lose to Fiji and Aus anyway.

I wish you were my bookie

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry my bad..




I disagree, Burgess Defence will be solid if he plays, you do know he was rated as the one of the best props ever in rugby league..

Also as you go up the tiers of rugby on first phase ball (scrum, line out) 13 becomes far harder in defence than 12, the backline in higher class rugby bunch very close(from 10 to 13) and will back the their drift, it's much easier for the 13 to get sucked in and then caught on the outside.

If you watch a lot of top class backline moves now days you'll see they'll target the 13's outside shoulder.

I just think Burgess has a lot to learn at centre and mistakes at this level will be crucial, as far as my original comment re Cipriani, he is an instinct player who can unlock defences and I'm really happy he won't be playing against us, I'd like to see Mathew Morgan in our final squad for the same reason but doubt Gat's will go with him.

 

[goodNumber10]

Brad Barritt: http://www.skysports.com/rugby-unio...arritt-england-world-cup-squad-is-a-statement

 

[valley commando]

Meh I dunno they hadn't played since May . They got beaten up . They looked knackered to me and like they didn't want to get injured . I'm not too worried if I'm honest . If the same happens in the Ireland game then I'll be more worried

Or if Wales annihilate Ireland this weekend for that matter

Also anyone read this bull****e from Stuart Barnes ....England reveal defensive hand
http://w.ww.skysports.com/share/9967863

Do you mean Dewi Morris, its his comments that the link took me too

 

[Tony Manx]

Do you mean Dewi Morris, its his comments that the link took me too

Having no mind of his own, he does tend to quote Barnes!

Anyway, for what it is worth....in my personal view, Lancaster got it wrong with Goode (Cips), Burgess (Burrell), Kruis (Attwood) and I would probably have gone with Easter rather than Vunipola but that one is more marginal.

Anyways up, it is his job, and his knowledge/experience of the players so I am going to back his judgement until we lose!!

 

[Every Time Ref]

When I say can't, you're right, I obviously don't mean its impossible.
However, given that we could have entered this world cup, along with home advntage having all selections nailed down, that we should by now have a resilient set-piece and very settled combinations - we are comparatively in a disappointing position.
I am also comparing us to the other teams in this competition who have come to the boil at the right time (Ireland, Australia), those who look vastly improved (France) and those who were already the clear favourites (New Zealand).
Mostly, though, when I say we are unlikely to win the thing it's because of my lack of faith in the lineout and unease over the scrum. Our 3 hookers over the couple of games have looked shaky at best in the area that matters most.

- - - Updated - - -



Completely this.

I guess my point is that given the time Lancaster and co have had together, to develop combinations and partnerships, to develop a style(to be fair I sort of think we've developed a way of playing), given home advantage, we almost could have been going into this competition saying that we should expect to win it. In reality I feel like we are simply one of half a dozen teams in with a shout.

I agree, the frustration is we could be so much better but we're going in as "in with a chance" rather than a real force. I think I'd have us as third equal favourites, personally? So hard to put a number on these things but New Zealand and South Africa clearly top two, the three of us in the group of death plus Ireland all in with a reasonable shout depending how our group goes - bear in mind the winner of our group only has to beat 1 of NZ and SA to win. World Cups come down to one-off games under immense pressure, any number of teams have just clicked at the right time to win a one-off game over the years.

 

[Yoshimitsu]

I agree, the frustration is we could be so much better but we're going in as "in with a chance" rather than a real force. I think I'd have us as third equal favourites, personally? So hard to put a number on these things but New Zealand and South Africa clearly top two, the three of us in the group of death plus Ireland all in with a reasonable shout depending how our group goes - bear in mind the winner of our group only has to beat 1 of NZ and SA to win. World Cups come down to one-off games under immense pressure, any number of teams have just clicked at the right time to win a one-off game over the years.

I hate it. According to the telegraph (which may have course been ********) the squad has largely been picked based on psychological makeup as much as rugby union ability. I have no doubt that Sam Burgess is fantastic mentally but a world class centre? No. A premier class centre? No. So what in God's **** is he doing in the squad ahead of Luther? Lancaster has bottled this and personally i'd have had both Luther and Danny in the squad at the expense of Burgess and Owen Farrell.

 

[McTallshort]

I hate it. According to the telegraph (which may have course been ********) the squad has largely been picked based on psychological makeup as much as rugby union ability. I have no doubt that Sam Burgess is fantastic mentally but a world class centre? No. A premier class centre? No. So what in God's **** is he doing in the squad ahead of Luther? Lancaster has bottled this and personally i'd have had both Luther and Danny in the squad at the expense of Burgess and Owen Farrell.

Amen brother! Greenwood was a great player but his pundit style belongs more to Football than Rugby

 

[Tony Manx]

Amen brother! Greenwood was a great player but his pundit style belongs more to Football than Rugby

Not sure what this is about but Will is one of the better pundits to my mind as a rule!!