• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

England World Cup Squad

2007 vibes all over it. This is from the post RWC 2007 review in a Guardian article, and it could almost be written today but with different coach and player names- scarily accurate:

"So many harsh words have been flying around English rugby in the past 10 days that someone was bound to get caught in the crossfire. Unlike Mike Catt and Lawrence Dallaglio, Olly Barkley has not written a book but he certainly deserves a share of their royalties. As Dallaglio acknowledges, no one summed up England's World Cup pool stage travails more succinctly than Barkley - "Look, Brian, no one's got a f****** clue how we're supposed to be playing here" - during the fateful meeting after the 36-0 drubbing by South Africa.

Barkley's life would have been easier had Dallaglio phoned him in advance to ask if he was happy to be quoted directly slagging off the England head coach, Brian Ashton. Instead the 25-year-old Bath fly-half was outed without his consent and yesterday, for the first time, he chose to elaborate. If those responsible for the World Cup review are seeking an honest eye-witness appraisal from a player with aspirations to be involved in New Zealand in 2011, they should read on.
Interestingly, for a start, Barkley does not retract a syllable of his heartfelt plea - "If you ask the 15 guys who played against South Africa to write down the game plan, you'd get 15 different answers" - to Ashton the day after the Springbok fiasco. If anything he is glad he spoke out. "Ideally I'd have liked to have been asked before the comment was used. And if I'd said it behind closed doors and Lawrence had repeated it [in his book] I'd have been slightly put out. But in fairness to Lol it was a comment anyone could have picked up on. It was a very open and honest meeting. He hasn't changed my words or exaggerated them. I felt it was the truth at that stage and I'm not going to back down from it. I'd like to think it went some way towards changing what was going wrong."

Yet listening to Barkley, as with Catt and Dallaglio, there is no question that the entire squad felt compelled to intervene to steer the good ship England away from the jagged rocks. "We felt teams were defending against us far too easily," says Barkley. "We weren't stretching them out nearly enough. We needed more variation in our game. It wasn't a case of saying, 'Let's wait and see.' We were in the middle of a World Cup in which we could have gone home during the pool stages. I didn't want that to happen and nor did Catty or Jonny Wilkinson or several others."
Significantly, too, Barkley backs Catt's assessment that Ashton, a coach they both knew well from Bath, found it harder than he expected to cope with the top role. "I agree with most of what Catty says. Brian is a great attacking coach and he gives players the freedom to express themselves. But as a head coach you are asked to take on an awful lot. When you are asked to do more than you usually do it can have an impact on the way you coach.

"I'm not saying Brian was bad at it, only that it's an incredibly hard job. When he came back to Bath we played some great rugby under him but we already had certain structures in place. It was a massive ask for Brian to bring together a new group of players and coaches in a big year for England."

Furthermore Barkley believes England's analysis of other teams was not rigorous enough. "I don't believe in this country that we're tremendously good at analysing opponents and playing accordingly. Australians, in contrast, seem to be superb at it, probably the best in the world." That might seem a curious conclusion after the Wallabies' defeat in the World Cup quarter-final in Marseille but Barkley is no tactical novice. Catt reveals that his younger colleague came up with "pretty well all of the moves" once the team opted to change tack for the Samoa game and the fly-half-cum-centre, naively perhaps, is not shy of openly questioning whether the present coaching structure needs adjustment.

"Where has Brian been successful in the past?" he asks rhetorically. "It's been when he has been asked to coach the attack. Mike Catt's big thing is to get people playing to their strengths, and coaches are no different. You wouldn't ask Mike Ford to coach the attack or ask Brian simply to look after the defence and the media. Moving forward, everyone has to be clear what they're doing."

As yet Barkley has not rung Ashton to explain all this personally. First he has his Bath place to worry about; the dead leg which cost him a possible World Cup final appearance is now virtually healed but South Africa's Butch James has arrived at the Rec and competition for Barkley's preferred No10 jersey is intense. Like everyone, though, he is watching the England situation closely. "We need to work out where we're falling short very quickly because the Six Nations and summer tours will soon come around. I'm sure there'll be certain changes but I don't know where. That's Rob Andrew's job and I've every confidence in him making the right calls. It comes back to consistency and clarity of coaching and selection. Players simply want to know where they stand."

Dressing-room tension:

Catt

"When we got back to our hotel [after the win over the US] the players were very down. I sat up with Olly Barkley, who had been our best player, until 2.30am, talking about how we could put it right against the Springboks. We came up with a game plan we believed would work. The question was whether we could convince the coaches to implement it"

Dallaglio
"It was a tough meeting for Brian, something you realised when you heard Olly Barkley, who had worked with him at Bath, say: 'Look, Brian, no one's got a f****** clue how we're supposed to be playing here. If you ask the 15 guys who played against South Africa to write down the game plan, you'd get 15 different answers.' It was harsh, but it was true."

Catt

"Between us we devised a playing system, though it was Olly Barkley who came up with pretty well all the moves. On the Monday [after losing 36-0 to South Africa] we began practising what we had preached."


It was only going down to 12 men, when the pre meditated game plan went out the window that we began to look anything like dangerous. All of a sudden the physicality and intensity that you expect from England at Twickenham began to drip-feed back.

The one good thing is that at least 4 warm up games have really exposed the issues to give an opportunity to be addressed.
I think there is a game plan, just it does not suit the current squads strengths.

If SB wants to play his way, why not build around a Tigers core and then have others fit in.
Start with
Cole, Martin, Chessum, Youngs, Steward, et al.
And have the others fit into the style, but I think he is trying too hard to implement a game plan on so many players they are all struggling.

He tried the Quins style v Wales the other day with Dombrandt, Care, Smith, Marchant, but it was just him fishing for something to work.
This week he tried the Sarries plan, but again has only allowed the players a week to prepare.

It seems as though after the 6N, when he said the players were not fit enough, he had to rethink his original plans, and he is still trying to find one.
 
The thing that surprised me about the "players revolt" in 2007 has always been Catt's part in it (more specifically that he didn't see the pattern, and start doing exactly that much, much earlier), as he'd seen Ashton do the same thing twice previously.
As in Ashton wanted the players to take the lead?
 
It's an awkward position for SB to be in for the next two games (on top of....every other awkward position he's gotten himself into over the last few weeks):
Care (despite age) is a newcomer to the side and has barely played,
Youngs now first choice (presumably?) but not had a start in a while,
Mitchell needs minutes to gel as he's been out of the squad for a few weeks

I'm guessing Youngs/Care for Ireland, Care/Mitchell for Fiji
Or does Mitchell come in above Care? On the one hand he had a very good 6N, on the other he got shitcanned for some reason a few weeks ago so is down the pecking order
 
Blessing in disguise I think to have Alex Mitchell and George Ford being thrust into potential starter positions. I see Care becoming 3rd choice quite quickly especially with Smith likely not starting at 10. Hoping they can play similar roles to Gommersall (9)and Catt (12) in 2007.

Are we anticipating a lineup close to the first World Cup game XV in Dublin this week, then rest a few for the week after?

Or the other way around?
 
Are we anticipating a lineup close to the first World Cup game XV in Dublin this week, then rest a few for the week after?

Or the other way around?
The former, I reckon
Though do we even know our first choice side? Even before losing our starting 9/10
3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 don't feel particularly concrete (well, I guess Billy is nailed on at 8, but he shouldn't be, and Lawes is probably very close to nailed on at 6)

We could put out our first choice vs Ireland it be a very different side to our first choice side after it!
 
IF the poor displays so far are down to overtraining (in the gym) right now, then it'll be first choice for Ireland, and make-weights for Fiji, as we'll really be needing to give the players time off to recover and actually reap some benefits from being flogged.

I'm far from convinced that the idea is anything but straw-clutching though.
 
Borthers and the coaching team must be having kittens. It felt like to me it was going to be Young's/JvP to deliver the game plan with Care to start the Chile game and A N Other. So while Mitchell being the next cab off the rank was logical in terms of him being in the wider squad there's now going to be two running, sniping, quick ball 9's and Youngs. So does that mean it's now Young's to start with Care or Mitchell on the bench? Or tear up the game plan and go with Care/Mitchell to start with the other on the bench against Argentina?
 
Though do we even know our first choice side? Even before losing our starting 9/10
3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 don't feel particularly concrete (well, I guess Billy is nailed on at 8, but he shouldn't be, and Lawes is probably very close to nailed on at 6)

If everyone's fit I'd be amazed if it wasn't Genge, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Chessum, Lawes, Curry, Binny, Youngs (ex JVP), Farrell, Daly, Manu, Lawrence, Watson & Steward.

Where I take real issue is the back 5 of the scrum. In my world….

If nothing else the back row has to be high energy and in the faces of opponents (with no little skill). Binny's not that so perm 3 from 4 of Earl, Willis, Curry and Ludlam who probably gets to start at 8.

Lawes is a class act and our best line out operator (own and opponents ball). He plays, but he's getting on a bit and hasn't played much recently - he's great but he's not going to be quite as intense as those younger, smaller others. I've said it before, but I'd move him back to lock for this tournament - pair him alongside Chessum (our best 6N forward) then you've suddenly got 2 6'7" excellent line out locks who are both capable of rampaging in the loose. Might not be the strongest scrummaging pair, but it's not like we've got a Skelton or Willemse up our sleeves or would be looking to make our scrum a point of difference anyhow - it's simply not strong enough. We could even get revolutionary with channel one ball. Our first choice front row all with 50+ caps ought to be able to deliver that.

EDIT: Lawes is listed at around the same weight as Flament, Ryan and Beirne and more than Woki. I know he's not played in the row for a while but there's no reason this couldn't work.
 
Last edited:
If everyone's fit I'd be amazed if it wasn't Genge, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Chessum, Lawes, Curry, Binny, Youngs (ex JVP), Farrell, Daly, Manu, Lawrence, Watson & Steward.
Yeah, that's my expected too - though 5, 7 and 13 not fit to play this week just gone (possibly all involved this coming week) and 10 will be banned as of tomorrow
Lots still up in the air at this stage
 
Confirmation of the JvP --> Mitchell switch

Feel for JvP, so close yet so far to the RWC - hope he makes a quick and full recovery
Mitchell is the best debatably the best scrum half in england at the minute, but I just dont see the point of him with how steve wants to play, its antithetical to his strengths. Warr or Spencer would of made the most sense to fit the style instead of it just being more square pegs in round holes.
 
Yeah, that's my expected too - though 5, 7 and 13 not fit to play this week just gone (possibly all involved this coming week) and 10 will be banned as of tomorrow
Lots still up in the air at this stage
I think this is a massive blessing in disguise tbh, Ford is far more capable of doing audibles while also being able to execute the game plan to a very high level. Games might actually be watchable.
 
Mitchell is the best debatably the best scrum half in england at the minute, but I just dont see the point of him with how steve wants to play, it's antithetical to his strengths. Warr or Spencer would of made the most sense to fit the style instead of it just being more square pegs in round holes.
Agreed, I thought he would have gone for Warr as replacement for JVP / Youngs and have Mitchell on standby in case of injury to Care.
 

Latest posts

Top