England World Cup Squad

[TopTen2003]

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.

I agree with a lot of that.

I like Lawes in the line out but I agree that we need real dynamism and nuisance in the back row. I thought Earl gave the physical l performance that could cover the switch of Lawes to lock and therefore Lawes and Itoje would possibly be where I go given Chessum has to really prove fitness.

My only reservation is that I would like to have some real options off the bench and therefore would that change any thoughts? Not sure.

1. Genge
2. George
3. Sinckler
4. Itoje
5. Lawes
6. Curry
7. Willis
8. Earl

9. Youngs
10. Ford
11. Daly
12. Lawrence
13. Tuilagi
14. Watson
15. Arundell

That to me would be something like the mix I would want- experienced tight 5 and a very mobile back row that includes the form player (so far) in Ben Earl.

Youngs and Ford have a decent partnership at 9 and 10 (as long as Youngs is at his best and not the half step delayed version we saw at the end of EJs tenure), whilst the midfield can make yards and set some nice decoys for what is a strong back three that contains 3 players all capable of covering full back, a great left boot from Daly and therefore offsets the risk of Arundell starting there. He has the X factor in space and therefore he does deserve that shot.

The bench is somewhat trickier- if you picked that starting XV how would you line your bench up? Would Billy V be an intriguing option against tired legs? Is Chessum someone who can come on and be an impact sub? And how would you rejig the back line in the event we bring one of the centres off in second half?

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Mitchell is like Randall a few years ago.

Makes some great snipes and runs = he's the best

Comes to game management and control he hasn't shown enough for me to say he's that good

Game management for a 9 is imo the biggest key.

I agree with that, but they're also missing a pretty big piece of the jigsaw if they're not carrying a threat themselves.

 

[HamJan]

You will get ben youngs and like it.

Hahaha

 

[Noonz]

I agree with a lot of that.

I like Lawes in the line out but I agree that we need real dynamism and nuisance in the back row. I thought Earl gave the physical l performance that could cover the switch of Lawes to lock and therefore Lawes and Itoje would possibly be where I go given Chessum has to really prove fitness.

My only reservation is that I would like to have some real options off the bench and therefore would that change any thoughts? Not sure.

1. Genge
2. George
3. Sinckler
4. Itoje
5. Lawes
6. Curry
7. Willis
8. Earl

9. Youngs
10. Ford
11. Daly
12. Lawrence
13. Tuilagi
14. Watson
15. Arundell

That to me would be something like the mix I would want- experienced tight 5 and a very mobile back row that includes the form player (so far) in Ben Earl.

Youngs and Ford have a decent partnership at 9 and 10 (as long as Youngs is at his best and not the half step delayed version we saw at the end of EJs tenure), whilst the midfield can make yards and set some nice decoys for what is a strong back three that contains 3 players all capable of covering full back, a great left boot from Daly and therefore offsets the risk of Arundell starting there. He has the X factor in space and therefore he does deserve that shot.

The bench is somewhat trickier- if you picked that starting XV how would you line your bench up? Would Billy V be an intriguing option against tired legs? Is Chessum someone who can come on and be an impact sub? And how would you rejig the back line in the event we bring one of the centres off in second half?

I like this starting XV a lot but would rather have Tuilagi 12 an Marchat at 13.

Just haven't seen enough of Lawrence to prove he should be starting. I think they'll try to play him similar to Tuilagi as well

 

[BPM]

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.

It makes sense from a style POV, but given neither Warr or Spencer has been in camp at all, it would have been strange to call them up now.

It's been discussed before but it is strange Warr hasn't had any interest given that he seems to have everything Borthwick wants from a 9.

Mitchell is the next best 9 who was involved in the training squad so I'm not at all surprised by his call up.

 

[Booboobang]

It makes sense from a style POV, but given neither Warr or Spencer has been in camp at all, it would have been strange to call them up now.

It's been discussed before but it is strange Warr hasn't had any interest given that he seems to have everything Borthwick wants from a 9.

Mitchell is the next best 9 who was involved in the training squad so I'm not at all surprised by his call up.

Yeah im not surprised, but Borthwicks choices just leave me confused. For me even though I said mitchell is debatably the best, warr is the form player and personally my preference. But why Borthwick continues to pick players not suited to his style is beyond me, warr is perfect for it, would make it move more smoothly as well as he is quicker to get the ball out.

 

[Geordie]

Well Ford and nowe Farrell at 12 ARE game management....so Mitchell can snipe away and let the other twe manage

 

[Juggler]

Farrell's red card rescinded?

WTAF?

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Farrell's red card rescinded?

WTAF?

Rugby values dude. You know, Scotsmen and Englishmen get lenient treatment so they do not miss a game at the RWC. Japanese (and likely Tongan) players commit similar or lesser offence and their ban sees them miss some RWC action. So Japan will be down a man against a Farrell led England in match 1. Just incase the rank hypicrisy wasn't 'clear and obvious' enough.

Its a tale as old as time itself.

I didn't see Farrell one myself, but if it was a red card issued off the field during the 10 minute review period then that seems an absurd precedent.

 

[Booboobang]

Optics would of been better without the bunker the time excuse might actually hold water. What an embarrassment for the game.

 

[BrokenWing]

I'm assuming the camera angle that was used to mitigate any ban wasn't available in the bunker at the time.

 

[West Country Wail]

It's mad all this camera angle business. I mean, from a certain angle I don't look like an Orc but that doesn't mean I don't look like one

 

[McTallshort]

That's just farcical. It was reviewed at the game while Farrell sat in the bin and now it's no longer a red card?

 

[BrokenWing]

Unlike the foul play review officer, the committee had the luxury of time to deliberate and consider, in private, the incident and the proper application of the head contact process.

Isn't that, like, sort of, like, what the foul play review officer was, like, sort of like…. For?

 

[ncurd]

Isn't that, like, sort of, like, what the foul play review officer was, like, sort of like…. For?

It's just madness,

As other have said I don't think Ive seen a single post commentator or other wise suggest it was anything else.

 

[ikvat]

Farrell's red card rescinded?

WTAF?

What a joke of equity.

Farrell's red card rescinded?

WTAF?

What a parody of justice.
They've found a new footage with an angle which prove that the tacle was legal...


taken with M. Johnes's celphone, a man who was judiciously sat on the opposit part of the stadium.

 

[Noonz]

Idk why I didn't post this sooner

 

[AlRums]

And we wonder why he doesn't change his tackle technique. He always gets away with it.

Travesty

 

[SG59_]

Rugby is being controlled by that kid in school who changed the rules as you played, isn't it?

"no, that doesn't count because I wasn't ready"

 

[AlRums]

I will be fair to the England supporters here

I've not noticed one dissagreement that the red card for Farrell wasnt warranted