• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

England World Cup Squad

Isiekwe is a real frustration for me. Physically he looks the perfect build for a lock...6'7, powerful, atheltic...yet hes just not clicking. As you say hes only 25 so it might just suddenly click. That would be nice.

I do think having the apprentices would be worthwhile (i know the falcons have had some of our players out there as tackle bag holders etc for the England team) .

I do think Seb Atkinson could be one to look at...hes not the biggest but he played very well last season and v quins he controlled Esterhuizen very well.

Tight head is a HUGE concern. I wonder if Baxter can actually get something out of Painter...? He does have a track record with tight heads.
 
Currently for a 6N squad I'd want something like:

LP: Genge, Rodd, Obano - Obano just about edges out VRR for me by being younger. He'll be 32 come 2027 while VRR will be 34. Not impossible that he'll still be performing well at that age but he would certainly be on the older end of the spectrum. Too early to consider Baxter as a legitimate option.

HK: George, Dan, and literally whoever performs best in the next few months out of Langdon, Dolly, Frost, Walker, Blamire. That 3rd position is very much up for grabs, and Dan hasn't exactly nailed down the 2nd slot either. Special mention to Sam Riley who has looked seriously impressive in his limited chances at Quins. Him and Baxter are going to form some front row for them in the coming years.

TP: Sinckler, Stuart, Heyes - picks itself really on account of there not really being anyone else. I still have hope for Heyes; he is still a baby in terms of tightheads.

LK: Itoje, Martin, Chessum, Isiekwe - again I think it more or less picks itself. Far too early for Chessum Jr to be coming in and as Olyy said neither of Coles or Clarke really scream international quality. Jonny Hill could fight his way back in with a good start to the season. Will be 33 in 2027 so not a write off.

FL: Curry, Ludlam, Earl, Pearson - I could be forgetting someone but again, this pretty much picks itself.

N8: Mercer, Willis - I wouldn't be bringing in CCS yet. He's talented and has a lot of potential but he's young and raw. Didn't perform as well in the U20s as expected. Maybe if we bring back the whole apprentice thing but not otherwise.

SH: Mitchell, JvP, Warr - personally I'm really hoping to see Quirke get back to the form he was showing pre-injury. If he does then he's the pick of the bunch IMO, but on current form you can't pick him over Warr.

FH: Ford, M. Smith, F. Smith - Atkinson has a chance to force his way in here but personally I'd give the edge to Fin. In the long run it'll work against Atkinson that he's 2nd choice at Tigers while Fin is very much steering the ship at Saints.

IC: Kelly, Ojomoh - Atkinson could force his way in here but I think it's a little early for him.

OC: Lawrence, Dingwall - Both EJ and Borthwick seem to be very keen on Joseph Jr but personally I haven't really seen it yet. Would be happy to be proven wrong though. Will also say that in the long run I do see Lawrence as a 12 internationally; think his pace has been exposed a bit defensively in the 13 channel recently.

WG: Arundell, Murley, Freeman, Roebuck - Radwan probably the slightly controversial omission here but there are still some very noticeable holes in his game. I know there are holes in Arundell's too but Radwan is 5 years his senior.

FB: Steward, Malins - personally I don't like Malins being on the wing at all. He just doesn't have the athleticism for it. But at Bristol I expect he'll be playing pretty exclusively at 15 which I see as his best position.

That's 34 players. How do the apprentices work; are they technically part of the 36 or additional? If part of the 36 then bring in Baxter and CCS as apprentices. If not then bring in 2 of the nearly-theres I mentioned.
 
If Kenningham comes back and stays fit for Quins as well as getting back to playing how we know he can, he could force himself into that back row conversation too.
 
Underhill and LCD surely.

Isiekwe definitely.

9, 12 and wings totally up for grabs. Presumably Watson if fit, although if you want an alternative to Steward at FB that's who I'd be looking at.
 
Underhill and LCD surely.

Isiekwe definitely.

9, 12 and wings totally up for grabs. Presumably Watson if fit, although if you want an alternative to Steward at FB that's who I'd be looking at.
If the french don't even allow LCD to be insured because of his injuries, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with him playing intl rugby...
 
If the french don't even allow LCD to be insured because of his injuries, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with him playing intl rugby...

The French have pretty strict rules. Whether overly so or whether our rules should be tightened up is another matter.

But Sharks have taken him on and presumably they / he's taken good medical advice and knows and accepts the risks. So if he's playing anything like, he's in the squad.

If Underhill can go an extended period without getting concussed/injured then definitely but I just can't see that happening.

Yep. But first port of call has to be to rule him in or out before thinking about newcomers.
 
What really boils my p&$$ as a clearly biased Radwan fan, is that he wasnt picked as his aerial ability is deemed a weakness....and yet now hes going to play Smith at 15....and hows his aerial ability!!
Complete lack of clarity of thought and planning from the management team. Also shown by the late decision that Mitchell is a better starter than Youngs and Care.
 
The French have pretty strict rules. Whether overly so or whether our rules should be tightened up is another matter.

But Sharks have taken him on and presumably they / he's taken good medical advice and knows and accepts the risks. So if he's playing anything like, he's in the squad.
I think I read somewhere that French insurance is more about the here and now whereas UK insurance looks more long term i.e. France said: Your neck is ****** we won't touch you, and UK said: your neck is ****** we'll insure you during the rehab process
Sanderson said, last week, that's he's making slow, but good, progress on all metrics and should be available at the start of the season (which would be three months into the French season, so makes sense why they weren't keen)
 
Complete lack of clarity of thought and planning from the management team. Also shown by the late decision that Mitchell is a better starter than Youngs and Care.
In some respect yes...in some respect, i think he knew what his gameplan is, and probably felt the experienced older guys would be able to adapt to that quicker than bringing in a load of new players. i can get that.

As we've said hopefully a few changes after this World Cup.
 
Complete lack of clarity of thought and planning from the management team. Also shown by the late decision that Mitchell is a better starter than Youngs and Care.

One argument on Mitchell, May and Smith at 15 is that Borthwick's been open minded and responsive to events. That's a good thing.

The other argument is that he hasn't got any judgment and is just knee jerking his way through. Less of a good thing.

Take your pick.
 
Complete lack of clarity of thought and planning from the management team. Also shown by the late decision that Mitchell is a better starter than Youngs and Care.
Not sure I fully agree with this tbh, I don't usually stick up for SB but this is all working on the assumption that he always rated Youngs and Care more highly than Mitchell and would always pick them ahead where as it could be more of a case he liked JVP best between the two but wanted some experienced SHs to come later on and help him during the camps, it doesn't by definition mean he would want them as starters.
 
Oh FFS.
As an England fan, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Owen Farrell gets a red card 10 minutes into the game and is banned for the next 1000 years.
I don't even care about the score/result. That outcome would be a result. We'd have a chance to get on with the rest of the tournament with our best players on the pitch.
 
Not sure I fully agree with this tbh, I don't usually stick up for SB but this is all working on the assumption that he always rated Youngs and Care more highly than Mitchell and would always pick them ahead where as it could be more of a case he liked JVP best between the two but wanted some experienced SHs to come later on and help him during the camps, it doesn't by definition mean he would want them as starters.
If this was his thought process then he is even more of an idiot than I thought. Your first choice scrum half can get injured at any time therefore you should pick your best 3 scrum halves in the squad. If he wants a bit of experience in the camps then add Ben Youngs to the coaching team, dont waste a place in the playing squad on him.
This argument ****** me off with Owen Farrell as well. If he is such a great guy around the squad then add him to the coaching team. On the pitch he is not cutting it with his play.
 
Times predicting...

1.Rodd,
2.Dan,
3.Sinckler,
4.Martin,
5.Ribbans,
6.Ludlam,
7.Willis,
8.Vunipola,

9.Care,
10.Farrell,
11.Arundell,
12.Lawrence,
13.Daly,
14.Malins,
15.Smith.
 

I don't know how there is this idea that Japan was just an example of winning ugly. The 2003 comparison makes me cringe my **** off
I see it more as a case of how, if you only drop the ball 136 times but your opponent drops it 137 times, you are more likely to win.
 

I don't know how there is this idea that Japan was just an example of winning ugly. The 2003 comparison makes me cringe my **** off
I see it more as a case of how, if you only drop the ball 136 times but your opponent drops it 137 times, you are more likely to win.
2003 England weren't boring or ugly though, what they were was dominant. It was "boring" in that they nearly always won the forwards battle but we had our backs getting involved all the time. The rugby we are playing now lacks control, vision, dominance and creativity. 2003 England had all of those. You don't get to play **** rugby and then try to somehow claim it's the same as the 2003 lot.

Some examples of one of the more forgotten names. How is any of this boring?
 
2003 England weren't boring or ugly though, what they were was dominant. It was "boring" in that they nearly always won the forwards battle but we had our backs getting involved all the time. The rugby we are playing now lacks control, vision, dominance and creativity. 2003 England had all of those. You don't get to play **** rugby and then try to somehow claim it's the same as the 2003 lot.

Some examples of one of the more forgotten names. How is any of this boring?

Lovely stuff.
 
Top