England World Cup Squad

[Geordie]

Can someone confirm about BIllys op. Was it last friday or earlier in the camp...or has he had 2 now?

 

[Reiser99]

On the whole sticking with who you know and proven players. One issue is that the proven players haven't been winning. It's all well and good saying they are proven, but if they aren't winning then sticking with what you know is just madness. Unless Borthwick has identified and fixed some major psychological or tactical issue that was holding them back then sticking with the same players will not win you a world cup.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Can someone confirm about BIllys op. Was it last friday or earlier in the camp...or has he had 2 now?

Over a month ago

Billy Vunipola suffers World Cup setback with further knee surgery

Billy Vunipola has suffered another World Cup setback after the England No8 underwent minor knee surgery last week.

www.standard.co.uk

 

[BPM]

On the whole sticking with who you know and proven players. One issue is that the proven players haven't been winning. It's all well and good saying they are proven, but if they aren't winning then sticking with what you know is just madness. Unless Borthwick has identified and fixed some major psychological or tactical issue that was holding them back then sticking with the same players will not win you a world cup.

The alternative is picking a group of massively inexperienced players who might be better, but also might not be. There are a few experienced players I'd steer clear of (the Vunipolas for example) but on the whole, I don't actually mind the squad choices and I can see a lot of the logic.

As I see it, Borthwick came in with a whole host of problems to solve. I thought he might have a bit of an immediate impact in the 6N, but in hindsight, perhaps that was naive.

I think a big part of England's dip in form is Eddie losing the plot and losing the players. They haven't become bad players, but I do think they were tactically confused and hugely demotivated. Hopefully the camp has given Borthwick the time to embed an effective gameplan (even if it is basic) and get the players mojo back. It looks like that might be happening, but until we start playing again we won't know.

In Ludlam's specific case, he's been playing well throughout so I don't know why there would be any reason not to stick with him. He's definitely not a player to single out for criticism IMO.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

As I see it, Borthwick came in with a whole host of problems to solve. I thought he might have a bit of an immediate impact in the 6N, but in hindsight, perhaps that was naive.

No, it wasn't.

I'm not disagreeing Jones left a mess. But that should also be an open goal for another coach to immediately improve things. Instead we saw some confused selection, an unclear game plan, and no discernible uptick in energy or vibrancy - if nothing else, players should be going gangbusters to impress a new coach.

Obviously, we can't judge Borthwick on that campaign, but those were worrying signs for me. Only time will tell.

 

[BPM]

I'm somewhere in between. I agree with your criticism of the confused selection and unclear gameplan. However, I feel like our whole squad was so low on energy and confidence that getting the 'vibrancy' would have been difficult for any coach.

 

[AngloScotsHybrid]

Agreed. The key thing for me is that Ludlam has already proved he can perform at test level. Even if Pearson starts vs. Wales next weekend and plays a blinder, I just don't think he has enough time to stake his claim. Earl hasn't really taken his opportunities.

I dont think Earl has had many opportunities. He has had a few games as a substitute but how many starts has he had?

 

[Which Tyler]

I'm somewhere in between. I agree with your criticism of the confused selection and unclear gameplan. However, I feel like our whole squad was so low on energy and confidence that getting the 'vibrancy' would have been difficult for any coach.

Would you have said the same in 2015?

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Would you have said the same in 2015?

Yep, that's the biggest stick he'll get beaten with.

The head coach's role is partly outward facing with the media etc. He'll set the high level strategy, but in my universe his biggest role with the players is man management. Technical detail can be left to others. Source: Ferguson, Sir A et al.

 

[BPM]

Would you have said the same in 2015?

Fair point. I guess, I just want to give Borthwick the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Fair point. I guess, I just want to give Borthwick the benefit of the doubt.

That's fair. Everyone deserves that to begin with.

But if the RWC doesn't go well, on top of the 6N, then the RFU may find itself in a bit of an awkward position. Do they back their man, in which case Borthwick's just going to say he's going to have to start from scratch and needs time, or do they cut their losses? Moot point of course if the RWC goes (relatively) well.

Our player group isn't stellar, but it's not awful either. There's enough talent and experience there for us to at least be always competitive. Talent's an accident of birth, but there's no excuse for any team not to be organised and fully committed.

 

[Crash Hamster]

I enjoy being a bit facetious - particularly as I think it's the only word in the English language with all 5 vowels in order.

Abstemious (though that's a much more dull thing to be)

Glad to have something to add, so I get notifications for this thread...

 

[Lé Ddanno]

You can bop the 'Watch' button at the top

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Would you have said the same in 2015?

I think the circumstances are different. England under Lancaster didn't win anything but they were pretty consistent and certainly not a bad team. It was a single tournament that led to his downfall and was not part of a trend. Jones inherited a team that would have been disappointed but was otherwise functioning fairly well

Borthwick inherited a team that had been setting record worst performances, had clear issues that had been around for a long time, had a coach with an attitude problem and felt like they were on a downwards trajectory that they had been on for quite a while.

I think it's easier to do what Jones did and turn around a usually well performing team that just missed the final finishing touches and had had a temporary setback than to turn around a team that seems to be utterly devious of ideas and confidence. Jones has solid foundations to build on, Borthwick is trying to build the castle in the swamp.

 

[BrokenWing]

England under Lancaster didn't win anything but they were pretty consistent and certainly not a bad team.

Do you think they would have done a lot better without the Burgess thing?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Do you think they would have done a lot better without the Burgess thing?

At the world cup? No. For all the scapegoating, Burgess was not at fault for our world cup loss. It was poorly handled but the real issue I think was Farrell snr taking control and our whole style of play shifting from quite adventurous attacking play in the years proceeding the world cup to stodgy, hyper conservative defence play in the world cup. We changed our entire tactics from ones we had been developing over years to ones we had not played, aligning more with what Farrell snr would have focused on.

I don't blame Farrell snr as he would have pushed things from the perspective of a defence coach but it seems there needed to be more push back so we didn't sacrifice our entire attacking structure in favour of it.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Abstemious (though that's a much more dull thing to be)

Glad to have something to add, so I get notifications for this thread...

Great call!

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I wonder what would happen if when playing training matches, if the care and smith backline destroys the Youngs Ford and Farrell backline. I'm guessing they'd cut them to shreds in training and just wondered if it would actually change Borthwicks mind or selection at all?

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I think the circumstances are different. England under Lancaster didn't win anything but they were pretty consistent and certainly not a bad team. It was a single tournament that led to his downfall and was not part of a trend. Jones inherited a team that would have been disappointed but was otherwise functioning fairly well

Borthwick inherited a team that had been setting record worst performances, had clear issues that had been around for a long time, had a coach with an attitude problem and felt like they were on a downwards trajectory that they had been on for quite a while.

I think it's easier to do what Jones did and turn around a usually well performing team that just missed the final finishing touches and had had a temporary setback than to turn around a team that seems to be utterly devious of ideas and confidence. Jones has solid foundations to build on, Borthwick is trying to build the castle in the swamp.

Lancaster win rates:

2012: 50%

2013: 80%

2014: 50%

2015: 67%

Overall: 60% which compares more with the much maligned Martin Johnson's 55% than SCW's 71% and Jones 75%.

So functioning OKish at best and I think the Burgess thing will have been highly divisive. I've said before that whatever I may think of Jones I don't think he'd have allowed that on his watch (although given his fascination with all things RL…..).

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Agree with ragey. There's a difference between losing coin flips and a team playing without direction. Since the South Africa final England hasn't looked the same. Borthwick really hasn't changed the direction of things.

Jones had a really good couple of years for England but it fell off a cliff fast. Seems like players got tired of him.