[2014 Mid-Year Tests] England

[goodNumber10]

that's basically Mike Ford defending his player - as he should.

I agree with "most" of what he's saying, and it makes all the right noises. I've no illusions that Eastmond will come back better for it, the question is if he can come back good enough for Farrell and Lancaster to not see him as a liability.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/feat...aster-to-decide-on-his-style-of-forward-play/

Interesting article by Nick Cain on his thoughts on the way forward for England. He echoes a lot of what regular England posters on here have been saying I.e. The balance of the pack is wrong and England need to decide on what style of game they want to play.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I'd agree with a lot of that.

I've been (as have a lot of people) saying we need a TH lock for ages - Attwood has been the standout in that regard for at least a year.

I hadn't really thought about Slater as a possible threat to Wood before. I don't know why really - because it makes a lot of sense.
It's tough because I really like Wood, particularly his attitude - I just don't know whether he's good enough if we want the team to genuinely push for the RWC.

Sinckler and Brookes are both in a position to really put their hands up at the beginning of this season.
If Sinckler can start to dominate in the set piece then I think he will be our number 1 TH.
Cole has the workrate and breakdown skills, Brookes has the power in the carry, Wilson has the pace - Sinckler is the only guy with all of those attributes.

If we do start using Attwood I expect our scrum to improve significantly - particularly for Wilson, for whom a strong lock is key, and turns him from a decent scrummager to a very strong one.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I think Slater would work more with a 7 like Kvesic or Armitage.

I like the idea for maybe the samoa November game if form from last season continues:

1) Marler
2) Webber
3) Brookes
4) Launchbury
5) Attwood
6) Slater
7) Kvesic
8) Morgan

Bench
16) Youngs
17) Waller
18) Sinckler
19) Kitchener
20) Haskell

 

[Peat]

I agree with a lot of it but disagree violently on a few scores, such as -

Writing an article about England's pack going forwards without mentioning Launchbury is an execution offence.

David Wilson doesn't have the same power and mobility as Franks? Really? Yeah, uhm, not agreeing with that. We need to see what sort of form and physical condition Dan Cole returns in, I think this injury layoff could be great for him, and maybe he'll regain the power and mobility he had as a younger player when not playing 70 minutes average every week. Sinckler and Brookes? Jeez man. Yeah, the potential of both players is great, but we're jumping the gun a little here. International cameos and a decent first Premiership seaso aren't the strongest arguments in the book. If they're ready by next Autumn, great, but I feel that planning on it is dump. Lets be honest; if Cole comes back refreshed, then him and Wilson is the strongest tighthead pairing in international rugby and the bar for Sinckler and Brookes being involved will be rightly high.

Similarly, saying people have to be in the England side because they looked great against the Crusaders is completely retarded. It was nowhere near the same challenge level and everyone knows it. I don't think Slater has the mobility and breakdown skills to be a international back row - I don't think he really has them to be an elite club back row, I've seen Leicester get totally diddled at the breakdown due to playing Slater there. It should be a no-no. You want a huge back row? Garvey could offer everything Slater does, but is actually a back row. Or Fearns, if not quite as big, is a chunky customer who, again, is an actual back row. Then there's prospectively Burgess... hey Bath, stop hogging the big guys! They're even hogging Sisi as a prospect. Dave Ewers has played 6 a bit (sort of), heck have Morgan and Vunipola in the same team... lots of options if you just want two really big carrying options and most of them involve actual back rows and better carriers. I suppose these guys don't offer the same mauling ability, but we'd better not be about to pick our back row based on their fricking maul. Try technical coaching you goons.

I'm increasingly seeing Webber as a player to be pushed hard though.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Disagree I have seen him play at 6 for Leicester a few times and he handles it well.

TBH I have seen Leicester getting messed about in the breakdown without slater in that how it goes.

Unless your saying that are breakdown work is better with Croft in it, which seems to go against what everyone says about him.

Although Mafi is my favourite all-round 6 at tigers.

although Garvey would be a better shout due to game time and experience @ 6.

 

[Peat]

People talk a lot of shat about Croft. He is a good if not decent breakdown exponent and what he lacks in an explosive clear out, he makes up for by getting to breakdowns before anyone else can. Its sad that England coaches seem to prefer him eternally out wide to using him in this way.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Disagree I have seen him play at 6 for Leicester a few times and he handles it well.

TBH I have seen Leicester getting messed about in the breakdown without slater in that how it goes.

Unless your saying that are breakdown work is better with Croft in it, which seems to go against what everyone says about him.

Although Mafi is my favourite all-round 6 at tigers.

although Garvey would be a better shout due to game time and experience @ 6.

I think slater is a brilliant player and should be challenging launchbery for that 4 shirt.

I agree with poster above that slater doesn't have the all round pace and maybe style to be an international back row but could easily be an international lock. The only question is.....

Is slater playing better and have two points of difference over lawes or launchbery? Until then he won't get game time under Lancaster.

As for ppl wanting to change the back row for some reason, why? If we keep trying new players who have 'potential' but no experience this close to the World Cup we won't get anywhere!

 

[ratsapprentice]

Just to be clear: I wasn't suggesting Slater should be the front runner at 6 - just that I'd generally only considered him to be in contention for a place as a lock.
Fearns and Garvey would also be ahead of him in my pecking order. I'm fairly sure Fearns is actually bigger that Slater anyway.

Peat: the size of our back row is absurd - I think that Garvey may be moving to lock this season.
I also think Ewers might be a 6 in England's reckoning.

My opinion of Webber has changed massively over the last couple of years. I used to think he was massively overrated when he was at Wasps.
But now I think he may well be the best Hooker in England.

 

[Peat]

As for ppl wanting to change the back row for some reason, why? If we keep trying new players who have 'potential' but no experience this close to the World Cup we won't get anywhere!

We're probably not going to get anywhere with this back row in this pack either.

edit: Feel free to disagree of course, but it is a pretty common view point now, with a lot to back it up...

 

[Geordie]

How often does Slater play 6 though. I thought he was mostly a lock.

Lawes must stay at 5...he is a lineout specialist now..with a right physical edge. The question is who plays with him? Launchbury is quality...but not as powerful as say Attwood or Slater. I think we need a bit more power in there. So for me its...
4 Attwood or Slater
5 Lawes

As for the back row...well i think the flanks are more a left and right flanker than 6 and 7.
The problem is do we have any real 7's? Kvesic...not flying yet. Will Fraser...always injured. Armitage playing in France and not likely to be selected...and in fact people still question how good he actually is when he's not behind a monstrous Tolon pack. (Thats for another debate)

Im a big fan of Wood...but i too are thinking that we need a more traditional monster in there. Some saying Slater...maybe Launchbury moves back to 6...but for me Garvey is the obvious one. Plays there for Bath and knows the position inside out unike the others who are locks.

Then let Billy and Ben Morgan battle it out for 8

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Slater is a Lock first and foremost but he is also a very decent 6 cover better than Lawes or Launchbury would be there imo, mainly. I also think he has a huge shot of starting if he carries on with his form, he is a natural leader and will be Tigers captain for this season and helped to keep Leicester together last season, his ability to break the line around the ruck and look for the offload has improved so much as well.

Although as I said before on potential Kitchener has the ability to become imo one of the top locks in the country maybe the world eventually, but I think he is 2 seasons off that.

But then is Garvey that much faster than Slater?



Also seems like Jacob Umaga (Mike son, Tana's nephew) is part of the Tigers academy and has played for the England midlands U16 could be one to look at although currently only 16.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Attwood is a lineout specialist too - he's the best English player at setting a Maul IMO.
Lawes and Parling are better at disrupting opposition ball, and possibly have a slightly better win ratio on their own ball (not a large diff. , I'd imagine.) - but I'd challenge anyone who says they're more effective on their own ball.

Attwood is the best scrummager of those three by miles.
I'd say Launchbury is more vital than Lawes - so for me, the question is: 'Who partners Joe?", not Courtney.

I know I'm pretty much the only guy on here who thinks so, and I'm almost tired of saying it myself: Kvesic is potentially world class and I'd back him to play out of his skin for England against any opposition: I also dispute any claims that he's played badly for Glos. He was consistently one of their best players last season.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I know I'm pretty much the only guy on here who thinks so, and I'm almost tired of saying it myself: Kvesic is potentially world class and I'd back him to play out of his skin for England against any opposition: I also dispute any claims that he's played badly for Glos. He was consistently one of their best players last season.

I wasn't sure about Kvesic but you have converted me.

 

[Geordie]

3 guys and 3 different opinons. Thats one of the problems with England at the moment...we dont have many just nailed on dead certs in the pack. Too much choice.

Im forgetting Haskell at 6 aswell who looked very impressive in the 1st test in NZ. If he plays well in the start fo the season he could make a play for that 6 spot.

Do you think Launchbury is more important than lawes? In what regards?

 

[Geordie]

I know I'm pretty much the only guy on here who thinks so, and I'm almost tired of saying it myself: Kvesic is potentially world class and I'd back him to play out of his skin for England against any opposition: I also dispute any claims that he's played badly for Glos. He was consistently one of their best players last season.

I think most people agree he has potential...the problem is we've been saying that for a few years now and its not materialising. i hope this season he comes out firing as i am beginning to believe we need a real SH style fetcher in there and he could be the one....though i also have high hopes for Will Fraser at Sarries if he can stop getting injured.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Horses for courses situation -
Just play players who will be more dangerous against the team you are playing. South Africa are known to be poor protectors of the ball so a specialist 7 is effective, along with a powerful 6/8 combo. Scrummaging wise your front row must be able to pack down with the best. When you play Australia (though they look like they're improving) your pack can be more athletic and running based. This all depends on getting a lot of players game time so they can step in too any game though, and Lancaster has been **** poor with that.

when we play South Africa-
1.Corbisiero 2.Webber 3.Wilson 4.Attwood 5.Lawes 6.Fearns 7.Robshaw/Kvesic 8.Vunipola

When we play Oz-
1.Corbisiero 2.Webber 3.Coles 4.Launchbury 5.Lawes 6.Haskell 7.Robshaw/Kvesic 8.Morgan/Ewers

 

[Peat]

Armitage playing in France and not likely to be selected...and in fact people still question how good he actually is when he's not behind a monstrous Tolon pack. (Thats for another debate)

People asking that are basically trying to find rugby reasons to justify a protectionist policy. Steflon was quality for LI's pack, is quality for Toulon, and while he might not make it as an international for some reason, it's pretty annoying that we won't find out. But not so annoying I back picking him while he's in France.

Im a big fan of Wood...but i too are thinking that we need a more traditional monster in there. Some saying Slater...maybe Launchbury moves back to 6...but for me Garvey is the obvious one. Plays there for Bath and knows the position inside out unike the others who are locks.

Slater is a Lock first and foremost but he is also a very decent 6 cover better than Lawes or Launchbury would be there imo, mainly.

I feel like people need a memory refresh. Launchbury played more blindside than lock for Wasps when breaking through - I don't think it was until last season that he'd finally played more in the row than at blindside - and basically earned his England caps based on his performance as a blindside. Sure, that was a little ago now, but Launchbury was a standout Premiership player in a poor pack when learning the ropes. Moving him back there would be as natural as moving Robshaw back, and no one shirks away from that idea.

But then is Garvey that much faster than Slater?

Good question.

I know I'm pretty much the only guy on here who thinks so, and I'm almost tired of saying it myself: Kvesic is potentially world class and I'd back him to play out of his skin for England against any opposition: I also dispute any claims that he's played badly for Glos. He was consistently one of their best players last season.

Woah there. I think you're far from being the only person who thinks Kvesic is potentially world class. The question is about his current level of ability at international level, which Lancaster hasn't allowed him to make a statement on.

Do you think Launchbury is more important than lawes? In what regards?

Launch has a bigger work rate and presence at the breakdown. The amount of rucks he is first to is ridiculous. Lawes is the better lineout specialist and hits harder, but I feel those are lesser attributes.

An Attwood/Slater - Launch - Croft combo could work quite nicely.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Woah there. I think you're far from being the only person who thinks Kvesic is potentially world class.

That's not the bit I was referring to - I can't remember anyone else thinking he was anything better than mediocre last season.

 

[Geordie]

Croft is always an interesting one. Divides opinions like no other. Personally im not a fan.

How about:
4 Attwood
5 Lawes
6 Launchbury