England World Cup Squad

[TopTen2003]

I feel the same.

I'm clinging on to the (wildly unrealistic) thought that this is all an elaborate rope a dope charade to fool the world in to thinking we're terrible.

I obviously don't believe that is the case, but if we can pull something out of the bag against Argentina, I do think that could be the catalyst we need. Here's hoping anyway.

I too am hoping there is some sort of conditioning plan that suggests we peak for the RWC but it's just the total lack of identifiable ambition that makes me think we are on a hiding to nothing.

Courtney Lawes post game interview about there being lots of positives has left me scratching my head. He talked about showing we could "hang with the best" and tidying up parts of our game that we can control better would put us right there.

What is the magical thing within their control that they think could turn around a 5 tries to 1 deficit against a 2nd gear rusty (and ultimately therefore impressive) Ireland?

I would feel better if I could see some identifiable patterns of play and an idea of where we're trying to get to.

All I've seen so far is a drab, one-paced road to defeat, and whatever we say and all loyalties aside, this player group has more to them than that.

 

[BPM]

I wish I could believe that conditioning is the root cause, but so many players just look like they've forgotten how to play. It's so depressing.

Such poor performances and no obvious positives must surely be hitting the players' confidence.

I'm hoping there's a point where they collectively think 'f**k it' and go for it. Ideally against Argentina. Winning the game that matters most could make all the difference.

 

[AlRums]

I too am hoping there is some sort of conditioning plan that suggests we peak for the RWC but it's just the total lack of identifiable ambition that makes me think we are on a hiding to nothing.

Courtney Lawes post game interview about there being lots of positives has left me scratching my head. He talked about showing we could "hang with the best" and tidying up parts of our game that we can control better would put us right there.

What is the magical thing within their control that they think could turn around a 5 tries to 1 deficit against a 2nd gear rusty (and ultimately therefore impressive) Ireland?

I would feel better if I could see some identifiable patterns of play and an idea of where we're trying to get to.

All I've seen so far is a drab, one-paced road to defeat, and whatever we say and all loyalties aside, this player group has more to them than that.

Every losing captain and coach says there are a lot of positives

 

[Geordie]

What we saying about the line up v Fiji?

Does he rest some of the RWC "starters" he has pencilled in (I'd argue none of them should be pencilled in after these 3 tepid performances!!), or for the sake of his own career can he afford to risk a Twickenham Fiji loss on his resume?

I think he has to play a very strong side....and pray no reds or injuries.

He needs the team to put at least one big marker down before the world cup.

But Fiji wont be a push over...and a bad game...well the confidence going in to the world cup will not be good.

 

[higgik]

I think he has to play a very strong side....and pray no reds or injuries.

He needs the team to put at least one big marker down before the world cup.

But Fiji wont be a push over...and a bad game...well the confidence going in to the world cup will not be good.

You could also say, with our current level if play, our strongest team could also lose and that would be even worse.
A position we have created for ourselves, whereby we cannot afford to lose with whatever team we put out.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

So today's the day for Farrell and Binny's hearings, although we're not likely to hear the outcome of Binny's until tomorrow.

Presumably suspended players can still train with the squad, just not play? Does anyone know for certain whether we can replace suspended players? Assuming we can:

If Farrell's red gets reinstated that's likely to see him out of the group stages but back for the knock out by which time a new captain, presumably Lawes, and a new 10, presumably Ford, will have been in the saddle for a few games. Unless things have been awful (quite possible), what on earth does Borthwick do? I'm guessing he wouldn't countenance dropping Farrell from the squad but there could be some really awkward decisions.

Binnny likely to miss the biggest 2 group games which would leave us in the ridiculous position of not having a single specialist 8 when we had 4 in the wider squad at one point. Given he's done nothing in his 2 games surely this would be the chance for Borthwick to correct a mistake by bringing in, presumably, Willis?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

If Farrell's red gets reinstated that's likely to see him out of the group stages but back for the knock out by which time a new captain, presumably Lawes, and a new 10, presumably Ford, will have been in the saddle for a few games. Unless things have been awful (quite possible), what on earth does Borthwick do? I'm guessing he wouldn't countenance dropping Farrell from the squad but there could be some really awkward decisions.

Binnny likely to miss the biggest 2 group games which would leave us in the ridiculous position of not having a single specialist 8 when we had 4 in the wider squad at one point. Given he's done nothing in his 2 games surely this would be the chance for Borthwick to correct a mistake by bringing in, presumably, Willis?

My prediction (and this is presuming it's possible for us to call up replacements):

• Farrell gets 6 weeks - if the Ireland game counts he stays in the squad, as he'd be back in time for the quarters, if not then he gets replaced by Slade as (realistically) he's banned for our whole RWC. Players/coaches always say how Farrell raises the levels of the squad in training, and he is the captain, so I think they'll keep him around even if he can't play for 5 games.
• Billy gets 3 weeks (2 if he goes to tackle school) - stays in the squad, Ludlam starts at 8 vs Fiji and Argentina

 

[Jashay]

I think that if Ford at 10 with Lawrence/Manu and Marchant goes well enough to get us through the pool stages comfortably then surely you just stick with what's working? But yeah, if we limp through it's trickier.

Same with Billy. I reckon sticking Earl or Ludlam at 8 would be a significant improvement over Billy, and if it works I'd just stick with it. (For the record I'd much rather Willis or Mercer was brought in)

As for who gets picked in the Fiji game; I reckon it's way more important to get players like Theo Dan and George Martin as many minutes as we can.

I'd also like Youngs to start so he has as much time as possible to get red carded and banned for 6 weeks, as so far the refs have been doing an admirable job of removing the players I think we're better off without.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

My prediction (and this is presuming it's possible for us to call up replacements):

• Farrell gets 6 weeks - if the Ireland game counts he stays in the squad, as he'd be back in time for the quarters, if not then he gets replaced by Slade as (realistically) he's banned for our whole RWC. Players/coaches always say how Farrell raises the levels of the squad in training, and he is the captain, so I think they'll keep him around even if he can't play for 5 games.
• Billy gets 3 weeks (2 if he goes to tackle school) - stays in the squad, Ludlam starts at 8 vs Fiji and Argentina

You're probably right but the Binny one would be intensely frustrating.

I can't see how the Ire game should count for Farrell though. Although WR had appealed, he wasn't banned at that point and Borthwick said that he had intended to play him but didn't because of all the distractions.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I can't see how the Ire game should count for Farrell though. Although WR had appealed, he wasn't banned at that point and Borthwick said that he had intended to play him but didn't because of all the distractions.

True, it's an iffy one but I imagine the RFU brief will argue that he was removed from the playing squad once the appeal was announced, and he was originally meant to be playing the game - not sure if they'd go for it but high priced lawyers have won worse arguments before

 

[TRF_Olyy]

First time an England test has had a tier blocked off?
Not sure I've seen that before

 

[Geordie]

If they get 6 weeks and 3 week bans...i would bin them both. Binny in particular bring in Mercer or WIllis and give them the games.

 

[TopTen2003]

My prediction (and this is presuming it's possible for us to call up replacements):

• Farrell gets 6 weeks - if the Ireland game counts he stays in the squad, as he'd be back in time for the quarters, if not then he gets replaced by Slade as (realistically) he's banned for our whole RWC. Players/coaches always say how Farrell raises the levels of the squad in training, and he is the captain, so I think they'll keep him around even if he can't play for 5 games.
• Billy gets 3 weeks (2 if he goes to tackle school) - stays in the squad, Ludlam starts at 8 vs Fiji and Argentina

Unless Faz is banned for the whole tournament, I agree and think Borthwick keeps him around under a 'leadership' guise, but also I am not adverse to the idea of Faz being on the bench in knockout games as he covers 10 and 12 and therefore does give us options in terms of managing a game in the final quarter (if we haven't been blown away by that point of course).

In fact on a separate point, there are a number of our experienced players I think a bench start might light a fire under. George, Itoje, Farrell being three very obvious ones to me. I quite like the idea of just saying to a Theo Dan, Chessum & Ribbans, and George Ford- go and cause havoc for 60 mins for us in the best way you feel you can, and then introduce the experienced heads on afterwards. I honestly think we need some ballsy calls if we're gonna light the spark in camp.

Is Billy likely to get a reduction or does his record warrant a long ban?

With him it's tough- SB has put all his eggs in the BV basket at Number 8 and the one thing he needed was match fitness and sharpness. 140 minutes of rugby heading into a QF or SF (caveat being that we make it out of the group) is not ideal. Unlike George, Itoje and Farrell, if you don't start Billy I can't see him being the versatile back row cover you want on the bench and therefore the question as you rightly ask is whether we replace him.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Is Billy likely to get a reduction or does his record warrant a long ban?

I don't think his record is bad, is it?
I had a quick look on the RFU's citing records and couldn't see him crop up - only think I can think of is when he got a warning for supporting Folau

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

True, it's an iffy one but I imagine the RFU brief will argue that he was removed from the playing squad once the appeal was announced, and he was originally meant to be playing the game - not sure if they'd go for it but high priced lawyers have won worse arguments before

So the RFU brief argues that a game for which Farrell should have been banned, but wasn't thanks to him, then counts towards a ban? Sounds about right and straight out of Yes Minister.

First time an England test has had a tier blocked off?
Not sure I've seen that before

Maybe not the most attractive fixture, but that's a lot of voting with feet. Should cause some sleepless nights at HQ…..

Kids tickets from £10, adult from £35.

 

[higgik]

Just watched the RugbyAnalyst on YouTube with his radical team.
1. Genge
2. Dan
3. Sinckler
4. Lawes
5. Chessum
6. Curry
7. Earl
8. Mercer* (assuming Billy banned and replaced)
9. Mitchell
10. Smith
11. Watson
12. Lawrence (with Steward being given game time at 12)
13. Marchant
14. Murley* (assuming OF banned and replaced)
15. Arundell

He also wants the RFU to get Nick Evans to come in as consultant for RWC to get Quins attack running.

The big thing is to start the process if getting Freddie into 12.

The great thing abour this is that I the contestable kick is the right option, then our best aerial player is already in the front line, meaning it is not as obvious.

 

[Which Tyler]

I don't think his record is bad, is it?
I had a quick look on the RFU's citing records and couldn't see him crop up - only think I can think of is when he got a warning for supporting Folau

As far as I can tell 13 years a pro, 272 matches, 9 yellows, and this is his first red

 

[TRF_Olyy]

He also wants the RFU to get Nick Evans to come in as consultant for RWC to get Quins attack running.

Can't see that tbh,
He was full attack coach during the 6N and we did nothing, bringing him in to work under Wigglesworth, with one game/three weeks before the RWC, isn't going to see us magically transform

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Just watched the RugbyAnalyst on YouTube with his radical team.
1. Genge
2. Dan
3. Sinckler
4. Lawes
5. Chessum
6. Curry
7. Earl
8. Mercer* (assuming Billy banned and replaced)
9. Mitchell
10. Smith
11. Watson
12. Lawrence (with Steward being given game time at 12)
13. Marchant
14. Murley* (assuming OF banned and replaced)
15. Arundell

He also wants the RFU to get Nick Evans to come in as consultant for RWC to get Quins attack running.

The big thing is to start the process if getting Freddie into 12.

The great thing abour this is that I the contestable kick is the right option, then our best aerial player is already in the front line, meaning it is not as obvious.

I like that 2nd row, otherwise the guy's in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[higgik]

So the RFU brief argues that a game for which Farrell should have been banned, but wasn't thanks to him, then counts towards a ban? Sounds about right and straight out of Yes Minister.




Maybe not the most attractive fixture, but that's a lot of voting with feet. Should cause some sleepless nights at HQ…..

Kids tickets from £10, adult from £35.

Shame got family bbq on the day and wife would go bonkers.