New England starting 15?

[gingergenius]

I've never seen enough of Clegg beyond 20 minute cameos. Which tells me straightaway that he shouldn't be playing for England, because internationals make regular starts in the premiership. I'm fed up of journalists pulling youngsters' names out of hats (like Clegg and Jamie George) when their rugby knowledge doesn't extend to anyone else.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Why.

He had a stinker off the tee against Exeter, but otherwise his performance was sound to good. Wouldn't describe him as shite IMHO.

Agree - he's usually very good off of the tee but did have a shocker, all other aspects of his game were good, and he has played well for Quins and for Saxons.



I agree with GingerGenius that he's not getting enough game time to be considered for England atm, however to say he's "utter shite" is well wide of the mark.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I've never seen enough of Clegg beyond 20 minute cameos. Which tells me straightaway that he shouldn't be playing for England, because internationals make regular starts in the premiership. I'm fed up of journalists pulling youngsters' names out of hats (like Clegg and Jamie George) when their rugby knowledge doesn't extend to anyone else.

Sounds very much like Jeremy Guscott to me. All I've seen of Clegg really was the 2007 Daily Mail Cup Final, He was playing for Barnard Castle against Warwick, and he was absolute quality. That was school rugby though and the shine comes off you abit when you make the step up to professional rugby.

 

[dullonien]

Not going to lie Lancaster looks the real deal. Really impressed with the man. England are going to be dangerous this 6 Nations.

Yeah, I've got a similar feeling. This 6 nations could be one of the best for a long, long time with England and France having propper coaches, Wales hopefully continuing their WC form. Ireland are always there or therabouts, although O'Driscoll is a big loss, even if it is a good thing in the long term. Scotland are constantly improving under Robinson, and if the Treviso and Aeroni are anything to go by then Italy should show signs of big improvements aswell. Looking forward.

 

[psychic duck]

Not going to lie Lancaster looks the real deal. Really impressed with the man. England are going to be dangerous this 6 Nations.

was he the "real deal" when he was in charge of Leeds getting relegated massively in the 2007/08 season?

 

[Peat]

I've never seen enough of Clegg beyond 20 minute cameos. Which tells me straightaway that he shouldn't be playing for England, because internationals make regular starts in the premiership. I'm fed up of journalists pulling youngsters' names out of hats (like Clegg and Jamie George) when their rugby knowledge doesn't extend to anyone else.

It's hardly pulling his name out of a hat when he played for the Saxons in the summer and is therefore currently part of the England set-up; he would not be the first man to be part of the EPS when second choice at his club (Dan Cole, arguably Corbierso, Lawes, Farrell at fly-half if he makes it just off of the top of my hard) and although his starts are somewhat sporadic, he's made 3 (soon to be 4) this season (so roughly a third of games) and he's got 20 Premiership/European starts in total, which I'm willing to bet doesn't compare too badly with the amount of starts made at fly-half by Farrell, Burns and Carlisle.

So I'm not certain why journalists shouldn't be talking about him, particularly given the yawning chasm at fly-half that's just presented itself.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

was he the "real deal" when he was in charge of Leeds getting relegated massively in the 2007/08 season?

Done well with the Saxons, the way he has conducted himself in the media and his willing to get stuck in on the coaching front ... looks pretty good to me.

 

[dullonien]

Done well with the Saxons, the way he has conducted himself in the media and his willing to get stuck in on the coaching front ... looks pretty good to me.

Yeh, me to. Afterall there's a big difference between Leeds and England. If Lancaster had bombed at a club full of internationals then I'd tend to agree with the Duck, but Leeds went down because they lacked the players to compete. While coaching an international side is a big ask, for England one important thing was to start selecting the right players instead of sticking with the same group of players that weren't performing. Lancaster seems to be doing just that, and I'm expecting a very different team to what England fielded at the WC, full of young talent and in-form players. Whether or not he can get the best out of them will remain to be seen, but it's a good start.

 

[psychic duck]

Done well with the Saxons, the way he has conducted himself in the media and his willing to get stuck in on the coaching front ... looks pretty good to me.

how do you think he compares with Brian Ashton?

Lancaster has done a good job with the Saxons, they always seem to win the Churchill Cup easily

don't think he should have brought Farrell on his coaching staff though (or whoever put Farrell there), as it's unfair on Owen Farrell as now he will have to play like Dan Carter or people will say he's just there because of his dad, and he is likely to favour Saracens players, him being coach could give Barritt and Strettle an advantage in selection

 

[dullonien]

how do you think he compares with Brian Ashton?

Lancaster has done a good job with the Saxons, they always seem to win the Churchill Cup easily

don't think he should have brought Farrell on his coaching staff though (or whoever put Farrell there), as it's unfair on Owen Farrell as now he will have to play like Dan Carter or people will say he's just there because of his dad, and he is likely to favour Saracens players, him being coach could give Barritt and Strettle an advantage in selection

Ashton was crippled from the off though. I think Ashton was a good coach, maybe not the right choice for head coach though. He tried to get England to play a more expansive game, but it didn't suit the players England had at the time, it would now though.

Regarding Farrell. I'm sure it will happen if Owen is picked, but tbh Owen looks like a great prospect and if he was Welsh I'd want him involved, even if his form has dipped recently. Andy Farrell seems to be doing a great job with Saracens, so why not get him involved with England. Maybe he can freshen up Englands attack which bar one game against Aus has been a bit drab for some time really.

 

[gingergenius]

It's hardly pulling his name out of a hat when he played for the Saxons in the summer and is therefore currently part of the England set-up; he would not be the first man to be part of the EPS when second choice at his club (Dan Cole, arguably Corbierso, Lawes, Farrell at fly-half if he makes it just off of the top of my hard) and although his starts are somewhat sporadic, he's made 3 (soon to be 4) this season (so roughly a third of games) and he's got 20 Premiership/European starts in total, which I'm willing to bet doesn't compare too badly with the amount of starts made at fly-half by Farrell, Burns and Carlisle.

So I'm not certain why journalists shouldn't be talking about him, particularly given the yawning chasm at fly-half that's just presented itself.

Both Cole and Corbisiero start a hell of a lot, and play at least 30mins per week. Don't know where you get Lawes from; Farrell not starting 10 is clutching at straws, considering he did all of 2011 until about October, and now rotates there while starting almost every game anyway.

There's not a yawning chasm at fly half. There's two or three spots to fill, and off the top of my head I can throw down four names of fly halves who start regularly in the Premiership, are young enough, are English, and are playing well. Not to mention several others who are old, or who play abroad. Clegg (and George Ford and anyone else) are both young and shouldn't be thrown into the mix just because of their age.

People must not forget that the England squad for this 6N needs to be a group of players that can be built into a top class team over 4 years with the help of later additions. That does not mean picking an U23s side based on how good we think they may be in 4 years, it does mean picking a squad devoid of players who won't be around in 4 years time and are taking up spaces.

 

[Peat]

Both Cole and Corbisiero start a hell of a lot, and play at least 30mins per week. Don't know where you get Lawes from; Farrell not starting 10 is clutching at straws, considering he did all of 2011 until about October, and now rotates there while starting almost every game anyway.

There's not a yawning chasm at fly half. There's two or three spots to fill, and off the top of my head I can throw down four names of fly halves who start regularly in the Premiership, are young enough, are English, and are playing well. Not to mention several others who are old, or who play abroad. Clegg (and George Ford and anyone else) are both young and shouldn't be thrown into the mix just because of their age.

People must not forget that the England squad for this 6N needs to be a group of players that can be built into a top class team over 4 years with the help of later additions. That does not mean picking an U23s side based on how good we think they may be in 4 years, it does mean picking a squad devoid of players who won't be around in 4 years time and are taking up spaces.

When first capped Lawes was Northampton's third choice lock (Kruger and Day ahead of him if I remember right, Kruger and someone anyway). Cole was second choice prop. Corbs was a second choice prop. Farrell is second choice ten and twelve. Yes, they all see/saw more gametime, but not by a great deal. If he gets a debut this 6N, it won't be off of many less games than Corbisiero made.

Whether he should is a different question. It's whether he might. All of the fly-half slots in the World Cup squad are (if Flood's injury is bad) vacant. Lancaster's policy of picking younger players narrows down the pool a lot; I cannot see him picking Andy Goode or Sam Vesty, Charlie Hodgson is the only older man I see as having a look in. It is a small pool to be competing for three places. I presume the four you mention are Lamb, Carlisle, Burns and Farrell; Clegg has more international experience than three of them. Not by much, but enough that it will be weighed. He has a good solid core of domestic experience, is a proven performer at Premiership level and his skills deserve to be mentioned along with the four mentioned.

Based on this, I think he will be considered, and its right to talk about him. I wouldn't pick him, but wouldn't be surprised if he was.

 

[j'nuh]

^ Clegg's international experience amounts to crucifying USA by 70-odd points in the Churchill Cup etc. Saxons/age-grade rugby is a level below club rugby - I wouldn't call it international experience. None of Burns, Clegg and Farrell have an international cap, so are equally inexperienced at international level. The highest level of rugby that the trio have played is Heineken cup rugby, of which Burns and Farrell have more experience than Clegg.

 

[LittleGuy]

^ Clegg's international experience amounts to crucifying USA by 70-odd points in the Churchill Cup etc. Saxons/age-grade rugby is a level below club rugby - I wouldn't call it international experience. None of Burns, Clegg and Farrell have an international cap, so are equally inexperienced at international level. The highest level of rugby that the trio have played is Heineken cup rugby, of which Burns and Farrell have more experience than Clegg.

That was also probably the worst American lineup fielded in two decades, the squad Eddie O named for that game was a joke it was USA "C" or even "D".

 

[Peat]

^ Clegg's international experience amounts to crucifying USA by 70-odd points in the Churchill Cup etc. Saxons/age-grade rugby is a level below club rugby - I wouldn't call it international experience. None of Burns, Clegg and Farrell have an international cap, so are equally inexperienced at international level. The highest level of rugby that the trio have played is Heineken cup rugby, of which Burns and Farrell have more experience than Clegg.

It is experience of an international squad environment, its an experience of working with new players and other people in the England set up (such as the current England coach) and learning the way they work and while the quality of opposition mightn't be the highest, they're still big men intent on proving themselves by beating England and still a challenge. Some may discount the Saxons, I don't, there's no way its making the RFU money yet they continue it so they must rate it.

Fair point that HC is probably the most intense level of rugby any of them have played and that the others have more - although not masses and masses more. Farrell hasn't started a single HC game this season at 10. Certainly not a big enough difference that they won't consider Clegg (just like the Saxons thing doesn't mean they won't consider Burns).

Also, the 80 odd point thrashing was a bit of an anomaly, in that while usually in charge in the Churchill Cup, England sides are rarely anywhere near that dominant. I put causing that anomaly on their credit sheets.

edit: I checked, and it wasn't too dissimilar to the lineout put out against England the season before.

 

[Peat]

Having just rewatched Saracens - LI, Farrell showed some nice ability ball in hand 78 minutes in and I'm now wondering why the hell couldn't he do that for the previous, as before then you could be forgiven for thinking Goode was the fly-half. Hard to square the two really, as he was quite poor for 78 and quite good for 2. Boot to ball he is insanely good, but I'll stand by my assertion that he can't get a back-line moving.

On other notes, I reckon not many people could have seen this, because not too many people are calling for Garvey, which they would if they had. Very good and my MotM. Paul Hodgson shocking and shouldn't be anywhere near England on the strength of this, Gibson good, Paice good, George Kruis is highly promising (not that he's near yet).

 

[Saintjay]

how do you think he compares with Brian Ashton?

Lancaster has done a good job with the Saxons, they always seem to win the Churchill Cup easily

don't think he should have brought Farrell on his coaching staff though (or whoever put Farrell there), as it's unfair on Owen Farrell as now he will have to play like Dan Carter or people will say he's just there because of his dad, and he is likely to favour Saracens players, him being coach could give Barritt and Strettle an advantage in selection

I am sure Owen Farrell is big enough to rise above the your only on the team because your dads the coach type gags. If he is good enough ihe plays. if he is not I am sure the other squad members and coaches will make it clear he is not.

To be honest if picking one player is as biased as it gets when you compare it to the biased Leicester and pick my mates policy of the Jono era. It would be the least of my worries.

 

[Atco]

Farrell seems to have the mental toughness required for international level sport. Accordingly, one can afford to blood him early without fear of destroying him from a confidence point of view. As to whether he's a good enough player, at that level, well there's only one way to find out. New selections, always require a courageous leap of faith. During the rebuilding phase, let's give the England management the space to make mistakes in selection. They are inevitable.
I discount 'daddy's boy' stuff. To have Owen's 'pedigree' is an advantage for him and also a disadvantage. They cancel each other out.
As to the alternatives if Flood is indeed injured (and I'm not convinced about that issue yet) it seems to me that the only viable alternatives are Farrell at inside centre with either Hodgson or Burns to Fly Half. Hodgson is the obvious choice but referring back to my mental toughness point above, it might be better to go with Burns with Hodgson on the bench.
Whatever happens, unless the management and coaches show clear lack of courage, (and I don't think they are the sort of guys who have that particular weakness), let's try, as English supporters, to show unusual patience and support during this difficult but exciting phase.

 

[Teh Mite]

I'd love to understand this English obsession of not selecting a player "until they're the finished article". How are they supposed to get experience without having the experience?

E.g. Foden - should have been capped while still a Sale player. But no, the English mentality of "he's not ready" meant we didn't. And now he has only 20 caps instead of nigh on 50. Farcical.

 

[Saintjay]

I'd love to understand this English obsession of not selecting a player "until they're the finished article". How are they supposed to get experience without having the experience?

E.g. Foden - should have been capped while still a Sale player. But no, the English mentality of "he's not ready" meant we didn't. And now he has only 20 caps instead of nigh on 50. Farcical.

Agreed.

The world sits back looks at Gatland and everyone runs around say "What a great selection policy" "Young players building for the future"

Then an England manager looks at doing it and all that is wrong with English rugby runs a mile screaming they are not ready.

You need to blood players, see who steps up and who does not. I still firmly believe with the right attitude and set up England are more than capable of winning again this year.

Also as has been said earlier you need to run a few risks other wise you don't find your Dan Carter.