England World Cup Squad

[ncurd]

Marler: England won ugly in '03, why can't we?

England are using the ruthless nature of the 2003 Rugby World Cup-winning side as inspiration as they build their own charge in France 20 years on.

www.espn.com

If they can win like that go ahead. I just don't think the forwards are good enough to do it. That being said, it looks like they'll just need to pull two games out of their ass.

Yeah let's compare ourselves to a team ranked that was ranked number 1 in the world and had beaten everyone in the preceeding year. That's a sensible thing to do.

Yeah that team could win ugly but also many teams would commit kickable penalties due to pressure made in attack. England were just the first team to properly play the percentages and say 3 points thank you very much rather than going for trys. As I've said many times on this board a team with Jason Robinson were never slouches in attack.

 

[ncurd]

I mean its such a stupid brain dead comment to compare us to one of great rugby sides. Its got me pretty riled up just thinking about it about it.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Marler: England won ugly in '03, why can't we?

England are using the ruthless nature of the 2003 Rugby World Cup-winning side as inspiration as they build their own charge in France 20 years on.

www.espn.com

If they can win like that go ahead. I just don't think the forwards are good enough to do it. That being said, it looks like they'll just need to pull two games out of their ass.

If Marler wants to clutch at that straw then fine. But he may want to consider that one of those teams were the no1 ranked team and GS winners who warmed up for their RWC by beating the ABs in NZ. The other, which he plays for, er, didn't

Big difference between doing what was necessary and just being poor.

 

[ncurd]

If Marler wants to clutch at that straw then fine. But he may want to consider that one of those teams were the no1 ranked team and GS winners who warmed up for their RWC by beating the ABs in NZ.

Also back then it was wasn't a proper tour. We flew to Wellington and beat New Zealand with 13 men. In a legendary match (for England fans).

Then we hopped on plane and following week destroyed Australia.

2003 England rugby union tour of the Southern Hemisphere - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That team earned their legendary status the world cup was about putting it in the history books.

 

[Lé Ddanno]

I mean its such a stupid brain dead comment to compare us to one of great rugby sides. Its got me pretty riled up just thinking about it about it.

Hey come on, he took a pretty hefty blow to the head to very deliberately enable a try. He's not in his right mind just now, leave him alone.

 

[AngloScotsHybrid]

Also back then it was wasn't a proper tour. We flew to Wellington and beat New Zealand with 13 men. In a legendary match (for England fans).

Then we hopped on plane and following week destroyed Australia.

2003 England rugby union tour of the Southern Hemisphere - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That team earned their legendary status the world cup was about putting it in the history books.

Yes the 2003 team did not actually play well in that tournament. They were in early difficulties against Wales and Samoa. They were probably just past their best. But they had played well in the 2 years before the tournament and beaten everybody. This gave them the confidence to know they could turn it around and they had lots of leaders on the pitch who knew what needed to be done to achieve the result.

 

[Zed]

I was watching footage of the England team train in France and they were doing team runs that didn't resemble how they actually played. Running a few standard, but effective backline moves e.g behind centres back to either fb or blindside winger coming in fb channel. Works a treat. But why are they doing that if that's not their gameplan. I can't remember them doing anything even closely resembling wide moves like that in donkeys years. If they are going to play 10 man rugby, then train like that. If Johnny may doesn't get the ball in a game and is just going to chase kicks all day, then replicate that in training. I'm sure they have 20+ backs moves that they run every training session and come game day, none get used.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Yes the 2003 team did not actually play well in that tournament. They were in early difficulties against Wales and Samoa. They were probably just past their best. But they had played well in the 2 years before the tournament and beaten everybody. This gave them the confidence to know they could turn it around and they had lots of leaders on the pitch who knew what needed to be done to achieve the result.

Totally this. They had the muscle memory of winning. And while the Orcs and St Jonny got most of the press, over time they'd also played some pretty good rugby too.

I was watching footage of the England team train in France and they were doing team runs that didn't resemble how they actually played. Running a few standard, but effective backline moves e.g behind centres back to either fb or blindside winger coming in fb channel. Works a treat. But why are they doing that if that's not their gameplan. I can't remember them doing anything even closely resembling wide moves like that in donkeys years. If they are going to play 10 man rugby, then train like that. If Johnny may doesn't get the ball in a game and is just going to chase kicks all day, then replicate that in training. I'm sure they have 20+ backs moves that they run every training session and come game day, none get used.

Was that unopposed stuff?

 

[Which Tyler]

Marler: England won ugly in '03, why can't we?

England are using the ruthless nature of the 2003 Rugby World Cup-winning side as inspiration as they build their own charge in France 20 years on.

www.espn.com

If they can win like that go ahead. I just don't think the forwards are good enough to do it. That being said, it looks like they'll just need to pull two games out of their ass.

Whenever I see comments about how boring or ugly the 2003 team was, it sounds like someone who's judging by the media reports, not memories of the matches.

Yes, we tightened up at the RWC itself, out of necessity, but that team was far from boring.

In fairness,Marler was 13 at the time so he would be basing it on media perception rather than memory and analysis of the 4 years leading up to it.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Also having to overcome Watson trying to give the vastly weaker Aussie scrum parity in that final.

 

[Which Tyler]

Also having to overcome Watson trying to give the vastly weaker Aussie scrum parity in that final.

Not that we're still bitter at all.
No, never that.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Not that we're still bitter at all.
No, never that.

The Funbus sorted that out in a mature, elder statesman way (even if we didn't believe him, the ref seemed to)……not necessarily words that spring to mind for our current LHs. Plus he scored a try for England which I think is literally an infinitely better record than Marler.

Not to mention his world beating liquid capacity…..

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Not that we're still bitter at all.
No, never that.

Would have been far more bitter had England lost that final due to Watson. But as OH says Funbus helped the team steady the ship. TFFT.

 

[TopTen2003]

We expecting wholesale changes this week or do you think Borthwicks careful approach will maintain the core of the side for this week?

Looks nailed on for Faz and Billy V to get a start, just wonder if Faz plays 12 to get some time in next to Ford.

Do we rest up George, Itoje, Chessum, Lawes , Earl, Tuilagi? I certainly would want to be managing their minutes but I suspect we will see a mix of some of them starting and perhaps a couple on the bench.

Wouldn't be surprised to see something like:

1. Genge
2. Dan
3. Cole
4.Itoje
5. Martin
6. Ludlam
7. Willis
8. Vunipola
9. Youngs
10. Ford
11. Daly
12. Farrell
13. Lawrence
14. Arundell
15. Steward

Can't see Smith playing 15 if Ford and Faz played in combo as we will want bench cover, so can see the safe pick in Steward to start with.

I just see SB keeping core experience on to start with and perhaps loosen up if/when we ensure the game is won. Pairing an experienced set of heads around Dan for the scrum and also for line out for example, whilst Faz next to Lawrence and Arundell supported by Daly/Steward.

As an aside, would a bonus point win here ensure we top the group regardless of the Samoa game to come, based on head to head records? (Unless Samoa beat ARG Japan- including beating one of them with an BP, and then us?)

 

[Lé Ddanno]

I really hate that lineup but it makes a lot of sense given the players we have and for rotation and resting. Itoje must be due a rest as well but he's kind of invincible, apparently.

I'd be surprised if we don't top the group now, and I fear a QF againt Wales is looming.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

As far as I can see Chile is the lowest ranked team in the tournament. What we do against them is totally so what. The only aims have to be rest and avoiding injury.

So we take as many first choice players as we can out of the line of fire. We look for the likes of Rodd, Ribbans, Willis, Arundell and Malins to play the full 80. Numbers mean there will need to be some first choices on the bench - but only call on them in the event of injury.

Disrespectful? Possibly, but reality is that any Eng XV should walk this.

Farrell obvs needs to play after his ban, but I'd hate to see him and Ford together for this (or at all really).

And if George is in the 23…..

 

[BrokenWing]

The only aims have to be rest and avoiding injury.

Avoiding a red card?

 

[Half Pint]

This is the best chance to put some of the 'squad' players on the pitch. Let's start with Arundel, Malins, Care, Dan, Walker. (& Farrell!).
I think getting some playing time into these guys is almost more important than 4 points. (although both would be nice)

 

[AngloScotsHybrid]

The Funbus sorted that out in a mature, elder statesman way (even if we didn't believe him, the ref seemed to)……not necessarily words that spring to mind for our current LHs. Plus he scored a try for England which I think is literally an infinitely better record than Marler.

Not to mention his world beating liquid capacity…..

There is a story in Marler's book about how he was given Jason Leonard as his mentor at Harlequins and they arranged to meet in a Twickenham pub and when Marler turned up Leonard had been there for a while and was absolutely rat-arsed and asked if their meeting could be postponed to another day lol

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Think I'd disagree pretty strongly with resting too many of our starting players for Chile. We have a rest week after this game and we don't want our players to have had 2 weeks of no game time before playing Samoa; think they could give us a shock if we go in disjointed and having softened up a bit.

When it comes to rest/rotation I'm always a fan of changing one player per 'unit' (front row, second row, back row, half backs, centres, back three). So something like:
1. Genge
2. Dan (George rested)
3. Sinckler
4. Martin (Itoje rested)
5. Chessum
6. Willis (Lawes rested)
7. Earl
8. Ludlam
9. Mitchell
10. Smith (Ford rested, although I'd also be on board with starting both Mitchell and Ford to form some much needed continuity/familiarity)
11. Daly
12. Lawrence (Tuilagi rested)
13. Marchant
14. May
15. Arundell (Steward rested)

16. Walker
17. Rodd
18. Stuart
19. Ribbans
20. Vunipola
21. Care
22. Farrell
23. Malins