[England] Post-6N/Pre-RWC Player Watch

[yaboyjj]

Just seen that Pennell is training with England this week - is this a new development, or has he been knocking around for a while like Foden?

Seems strange that they've (unofficially) brought two more 15s into the squad - still question marks over Brown's concussion issues?

Foden has been knocking about the camp for the last week or so- with him and Simpson/Croft, they are simply monitoring their injuries, which basically means Brown and Goode are the only fit fb's in the squad. Pennell is a new development this week- just there to keep him up to speed with game plan I presume, in the event one of Goode/Brown gets injured before Foden returns. AFAIK Brown was fully over the problems a couple of weeks ago, after they ran tests/returned him to full contact.

 

[Peat]

My favourite thing about this team is the front rows' impact in the loose; there's a lot of set-piece questions but in terms of work load and carrying capability, those six players should really offer a lot and that goes a huge way towards alleviating England's recent travails, assuming they're brought into the game well and not taking ball from a stationary start point 10 yards behind the advantage line.

Second row's solid. Personally happy to see Kruis get games, even if it is settled between him and Attwood (which I doubt) he's still one injury away from inclusion and two from the match day squad.

Back row... leaving aside Clark's history, I do feel he's more of the same and a bit of a waste; but I guess that's Lancaster's issue, not Clark's. He does offermore at the breakdown - the *great* thing he could do is offer more brains. Not sure if he will. Worry that we'll miss having two good back row carriers.

Half-backs - Yeah, I can worry about a successful half-back pairing at a lower level at international level. Wigglesworth offers slow service and little running threat. Fazlet isn't the smoothest runner of a backline either; I'd say it'll be interesting to see where he's at, but honesty compels me to suggest this mightn't be the fairest test if the ball is slow and Wigglesworth is slower. Our emphasis on kicking scrum-halves and poor kick-chases annoys me.

Back three - Never happy to see Goode, would like to see Watson step up.

Centres - Clearly the biggest bone of contention here!

I don't think 12T is out of the running. Maybe he needs something of a miracle or someone to muck up, but I don't think he's out of the running (although its disturbing that Cipriani is our back three cover here - probably doesn't matter).

Burgess for me should be judged on a) Is he standing in the right places defensively b) Can he notice and execute a simple pass for an overlap c) Will he offer the chat and direction Fazlet/all FHs need. Not that we can really judge the third, but that one is crucial and while I think Burgess is a chatter, expecting him to help direct a union game might be a bit much. Time will tell. Excited to see him and Slade though.

Less squandered more just how it goes. There is only 7 positions to fill, 5 taking the half-backs out and a lot of centres and wingers in form-flux with only a few test matches to slot them in. Like a kid at a pick 'n mix with only 20 pence to spend, Lancaster has mixed it more then the days of sticking with Hape, Tindall, and (couldn't score) Cueto lumps. It's a good problem and England have progressed albeit in a problematic way.

Yeah, to a certain extent you're always going to miss out on players, see churn and the odd failed experiment; it happens. Although I'd point out its 10 men in a squad and there's 40-odd games and that's more opportunity than it might sound like.

But - leaving aside my belief that there's been more failed experiments and missed out players than seems efficient - ultimately it all comes down to whether you can send out a strong squad at times like these. If we have a boat full of talent, nobody cares who didn't make it, but if you don't questions are asked. And I don't think we do. I don't think we can put out a match day 10 that offers strong defence, dangerous attack, and intelligent game control across the 80 minutes even with an injury here or there - or even two out of three of those.

And I think that, if you can't do that with England's player base and resources, then by definition, talent has been squandered.

I'm not pinning all of that on Lancaster, as I've already alluded to with pointing at Simpson's club coaches; but to expand on that, we seem to have a real problem in producing young backs with athleticism, basic positional skills and good decision making. We generally seem to get two at best. I mean, really, he probably deserves the minority of the blame for that (although more than most head coaches due to previous positions). But, there are things which are on the head coach and there are lots of those I don't think he's done well.

I'm not even sure we've really progressed that far from Johnson's era tbh.

 

[goodNumber10]

My favourite thing about this team is the front rows' impact in the loose; there's a lot of set-piece questions but in terms of work load and carrying capability, those six players should really offer a lot and that goes a huge way towards alleviating England's recent travails, assuming they're brought into the game well and not taking ball from a stationary start point 10 yards behind the advantage line.

Second row's solid. Personally happy to see Kruis get games, even if it is settled between him and Attwood (which I doubt) he's still one injury away from inclusion and two from the match day squad.

Back row... leaving aside Clark's history, I do feel he's more of the same and a bit of a waste; but I guess that's Lancaster's issue, not Clark's. He does offermore at the breakdown - the *great* thing he could do is offer more brains. Not sure if he will. Worry that we'll miss having two good back row carriers.

Half-backs - Yeah, I can worry about a successful half-back pairing at a lower level at international level. Wigglesworth offers slow service and little running threat. Fazlet isn't the smoothest runner of a backline either; I'd say it'll be interesting to see where he's at, but honesty compels me to suggest this mightn't be the fairest test if the ball is slow and Wigglesworth is slower. Our emphasis on kicking scrum-halves and poor kick-chases annoys me.

Back three - Never happy to see Goode, would like to see Watson step up.

Centres - Clearly the biggest bone of contention here!

I don't think 12T is out of the running. Maybe he needs something of a miracle or someone to muck up, but I don't think he's out of the running (although its disturbing that Cipriani is our back three cover here - probably doesn't matter).

Burgess for me should be judged on a) Is he standing in the right places defensively b) Can he notice and execute a simple pass for an overlap c) Will he offer the chat and direction Fazlet/all FHs need. Not that we can really judge the third, but that one is crucial and while I think Burgess is a chatter, expecting him to help direct a union game might be a bit much. Time will tell. Excited to see him and Slade though.



Yeah, to a certain extent you're always going to miss out on players, see churn and the odd failed experiment; it happens. Although I'd point out its 10 men in a squad and there's 40-odd games and that's more opportunity than it might sound like.

But - leaving aside my belief that there's been more failed experiments and missed out players than seems efficient - ultimately it all comes down to whether you can send out a strong squad at times like these. If we have a boat full of talent, nobody cares who didn't make it, but if you don't questions are asked. And I don't think we do. I don't think we can put out a match day 10 that offers strong defence, dangerous attack, and intelligent game control across the 80 minutes even with an injury here or there - or even two out of three of those.

And I think that, if you can't do that with England's player base and resources, then by definition, talent has been squandered.

I'm not pinning all of that on Lancaster, as I've already alluded to with pointing at Simpson's club coaches; but to expand on that, we seem to have a real problem in producing young backs with athleticism, basic positional skills and good decision making. We generally seem to get two at best. I mean, really, he probably deserves the minority of the blame for that (although more than most head coaches due to previous positions). But, there are things which are on the head coach and there are lots of those I don't think he's done well.

I'm not even sure we've really progressed that far from Johnson's era tbh.

We seem to have a problem producing young backs with positional awareness, basic skills and decision making?

Yet you somehow blame Lancaster for squandering talent that you've just said didn't exist.

It's not the national coaches job to up skill players, apart from world cup years they literally don't have time.

Regardless, of the players currently in the England squad, a large chunk came through under SL at Saxons level and he's blooded more U20's than any other England coach before him as far as I can tell- he more than any other coach we've ever had has trusted the national development pathways, and has done things like got the U20's training with the full England set up so transition can be planned properly.

In short I can't think of another England coach who's trusted youth as much as Lancaster has.

I think your mistaking previous regimes obvious lack of succession planning as Lancaster's when it's quite evidently his cross to bear due to long term mismanagement of the English elite game. That has to be put at Rob Andrew's feet and the RFU after they hounded out Woodward.

 

[Peat]

No, I didn't say the talent didn't exist.

I painted a picture of a pipeline that mostly produces flawed and incomplete talents if viewed through the prism of the demands of the very highest level. That means there's still talent there. I do not think Lancaster has done as well as we should expect with that talent.

Nor am I mistaking the sins of England rugby past for Lancaster's sins.

 

[j'nuh]

The one strange caveat is how well the England management have done with the front 5 and the 8. Bringing through Launchbury, Parling, Marler, Vunipola, Vunipola, Morgan and Youngs, getting Lawes and Cole back to their best and making Wilson into a proper test player. Sure, a lot of the leg work has been done at club level, but Lancaster has been largely successful in bringing through a strong pack (minus flankers), which he hasn't been able to replicate in the backline. You have to wonder if it's the failings of Farrell rather than Lancaster.

Still, Lancaster picks his coaches and if he doesn't understand the failings of the backline comparative to the pack, and isn't willing to make the coaching changes, he has to take the blame for it.

 

[Geordie]

How much of the pack selections has been the influence of Rowntree.

Well as you say aside from the flankers, (though Robshaw and Wood have been the best consistent ones we have through the last few years)

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

The one strange caveat is how well the England management have done with the front 5 and the 8. Bringing through Launchbury, Parling, Marler, Vunipola, Vunipola, Morgan and Youngs, getting Lawes and Cole back to their best and making Wilson into a proper test player. Sure, a lot of the leg work has been done at club level, but Lancaster has been largely successful in bringing through a strong pack (minus flankers), which he hasn't been able to replicate in the backline. You have to wonder if it's the failings of Farrell rather than Lancaster.

Still, Lancaster picks his coaches and if he doesn't understand the failings of the backline comparative to the pack, and isn't willing to make the coaching changes, he has to take the blame for it.

Yes because Cole back to his best had to do with England management.

 

[goodNumber10]

He clearly says a lot of the work s done at Club level.

 

[Makeshift10]

Can any Exeter fans give us the low down on Slade in the 13 role. Well aware of his composure, awareness, boot, distribution etc but does he pose much of a running threat, outside break, top end speed?

My big worry since Daly was cut is the back up to Joseph that will enable us to attack wide when necessary. Can Slade do this as well as his well advertised strengths?

Alternatively, how did Nowell go at 13 back end of the season? I'm guessing with him as only one of 3 wingers in the squad he isn't seen as 13 cover by SL.

Can any of you reassure me we won't be seeing a 12 (Barritt, Burgess, Burrell or 12trees) as the 3rd back on our bench come the RWC...

 

[Willodell100]

Can any Exeter fans give us the low down on Slade in the 13 role. Well aware of his composure, awareness, boot, distribution etc but does he pose much of a running threat, outside break, top end speed?

My big worry since Daly was cut is the back up to Joseph that will enable us to attack wide when necessary. Can Slade do this as well as his well advertised strengths?

Alternatively, how did Nowell go at 13 back end of the season? I'm guessing with him as only one of 3 wingers in the squad he isn't seen as 13 cover by SL.

Can any of you reassure me we won't be seeing a 12 (Barritt, Burgess, Burrell or 12trees) as the 3rd back on our bench come the RWC...

Exeter looked really good last season with Hill/Slade centre combination but mainly due to Steenson's injury Slade was brought back into his favoured position at 10 at the back end of the season.

Slade's outside break is pretty non existent but he has a good step and is very fast for a fly half. His game awareness is up there with the best in my opinion and, although his future is at 10, he could become a seriously good 12. His defence is excellent and his long and short kicking game is arguably better than both Ford & Farrrell.

I really liked the look of Nowell at 13 last season too but, due to SL picking only three wingers I can't see Nowell covering Joseph in that position.

13 is my greatest concern in this squad. Like you I am disappointed Daly was omitted from the extended squad so soon. If Joseph gets injured I think SL will pick a Barritt/Burrell combination which will negate a lot of our attacking threat under Ford's stewardship of the back line.

We are essentially going to pick 4 12s (Barritt, Burrell, Twelvetrees, Farrell) and only one 13 in Joseph. I think SL has done a lot of good in his time but he seems to struggle getting the balance right in the centres. His (& Farrell Snr) default seems to be bludgeon first which has its place but not against fast feet and quick hands. I'm thinking about our pool games against Fiji & Australia.

We will see but I tend to think it's a bit of a waste playing Slade at 13 with Farrell at 10. The ball will be slow & what ball he gets will be poor and, in the main, behind the gainline.

I just hope Catt is in Farrell's ear demanding him to keep standing flatter.

 

[goodNumber10]

2 points, the ball will be quicker than with Ford. The ball moves though Farrell a lot quicker than Ford, that's half the perceived problem - that he doesn't threaten the line and pass late to runners.

The second point is why do people think Slade will only stand at 13, I expect to see 12/13/10 interchanging all the time, even on set piece.

If Slade doesn't slot in to 12 I'd be amazed.

All in all this backing has three passers, one battering ram/offloader and two strike runners.

If they get good go forward ball they should be interesting to watch.

 

[TheSaffycen]

How is Wigglesworth a slow passer ? He is probably the best scrum half we have that actually gives our fly half the ball. He hasn't got as big of a running threat but he is still a player who can spot a gap
1.10

Combined with the best kicking game and the fact he is good at organising his forwards, he isn't an awful choice.

 

[Willodell100]

2 points, the ball will be quicker than with Ford. The ball moves though Farrell a lot quicker than Ford, that's half the perceived problem - that he doesn't threaten the line and pass late to runners.

The second point is why do people think Slade will only stand at 13, I expect to see 12/13/10 interchanging all the time, even on set piece.

If Slade doesn't slot in to 12 I'd be amazed.

All in all this backing has three passers, one battering ram/offloader and two strike runners.

If they get good go forward ball they should be interesting to watch.

You make a good point regarding the interchange of Slade/Burgess & to a lesser extend Farrell. I do hope they interchange a lot during the game.

I disagree with your first point. Yes Farrell does sometimes move the ball on quicker sometimes but all that does, more often than not in my view, is allow the defence to drift easier. For me that is the major reason why are wingers have not been scoring that many tries. Yes there are times to go wide early & get it through the hands but that's only when we have quick ball from the forwards.

Ford is so much more effective in attack as he squares defenders shoulders up and makes them think twice much more often. I don't think Farrell does this enough and is far too easy to read for defender.

I understand Farrell is a different type of 10 and that is ok but, for me, we need a ball playing 12 on his outside not a Barritt or Burgess type.

I agree we need balance between beauty and bludgeon but feel the balance is wrong looking at the makeup of the centres in the squad.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I notice that most of the talk re: Burgess has been over his ability going forward - the biggest issue he had for us was his defence.

Opposition backs got smashed if they ran fairly straight at him, but they made outside breaks and cut-backs like he was, ya'know... a forward.

 

[TobesHodges]

I'm not to worried about Burgess, if there seeing good things in training, then he must be doing something right and they won't send him out there ill prepared.. He's was a League Legend better than SBW, Falou, I'm super excited to see him out there, I have faith, probs to much in most people's minds :lol:

 

[goodNumber10]

You make a good point regarding the interchange of Slade/Burgess & to a lesser extend Farrell. I do hope they interchange a lot during the game.

I disagree with your first point. Yes Farrell does sometimes move the ball on quicker sometimes but all that does, more often than not in my view, is allow the defence to drift easier. For me that is the major reason why are wingers have not been scoring that many tries. Yes there are times to go wide early & get it through the hands but that's only when we have quick ball from the forwards.

Ford is so much more effective in attack as he squares defenders shoulders up and makes them think twice much more often. I don't think Farrell does this enough and is far too easy to read for defender.

I understand Farrell is a different type of 10 and that is ok but, for me, we need a ball playing 12 on his outside not a Barritt or Burgess type.

I agree we need balance between beauty and bludgeon but feel the balance is wrong looking at the makeup of the centres in the squad.

You've basically just repeated what I've said with more words.

Farrell players flatter than Ford, and brings people onto the ball on the gain line or moves it early - he is the perfect 10 to play inside Burgess and Slade because we want him (Burgess) on the gain line or Slade distributing.

Ford plays deeper but straighter coming to the line passing late to runners, or doesn't travel and let's Eastmond do the passing work, and as we've seen that doesn't work with Burgess.

They are chalk and cheese and in my opinion that is a good thing. People (not aimed at you) seem to expect England to find like for like replacements from 1-15 which just isn't possible.

Why have we not developed a replacement for Jonathan Joseph? Well because he's a once in a generation talent with abilities that can't be taught.

That's why.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Once in a generation talent.

Yes he is excellent but that is slightly OTT IMO.

 

[Willodell100]

You've basically just repeated what I've said with more words.

Farrell players flatter than Ford, and brings people onto the ball on the gain line or moves it early - he is the perfect 10 to play inside Burgess and Slade because we want him (Burgess) on the gain line or Slade distributing.

Ford plays deeper but straighter coming to the line passing late to runners, or doesn't travel and let's Eastmond do the passing work, and as we've seen that doesn't work with Burgess.

They are chalk and cheese and in my opinion that is a good thing. People (not aimed at you) seem to expect England to find like for like replacements from 1-15 which just isn't possible.

Why have we not developed a replacement for Jonathan Joseph? Well because he's a once in a generation talent with abilities that can't be taught.

That's why.

I agree with your last point and I know what you mean. I think it is good for have different options in the squad and as much as I prefer a back line run by Ford I do and can see the tactical advantage of having Farrell as an alternative option.

That said I think we are watching different sports as I have only ever seen Farrell play flat a handful of occasions for England. Probably more for club but I would say his default is in the pocket. I think he is most comfortable there.

I would say Ford plays a flatter game generally speaking and does it much more regularly than Farrell for both club and country. Maybe I am missing something but it is commented on and seems to be a general thought that he is a good decision maker in traffic eluding to the fact that he gets in back rowers faces often!

As you say he uses Eastmond out the back but whilst doing that using big runners (Burgess included) as decoys... Or using Eastmond as the decoy!

Re: Joseph I do believe Daly, although without that incredible step of Joseph's, is a similar type of player with an outside break and searing pace. He has a great footballing ability to boot but think he has been dropped from the squad because, rightly or wrongly, defensive qualities of others are superior. I just hope Slade gets that squad spot now.

 

[kesh]

Just glad Lancaster brought JJ in eventually, seemed to have a JJ / Wade blind spot for a long time.

Was still holding a candle for Eastmond even if he is too small for a Test level centre. He should of showed his versatility and pushed to play full back from time to time. Goode breaks the backs' rule #1: his a snail. Eastmond would of made a cracking replacement for Brown.

 

[TobesHodges]

When it comes to this Burgess/Slade "conundrum" Burgess is going to get the spot ahead of Slade purely down to the "experience of the big occasion". Burgess has played against and with the best players at the highest level on the biggest stages (league though). Although I think Slade is a far more natural 12 than anyone else we have (Apart from 36 if he got his act together). Any coach will worry about his top level temperament playing against players Like Nonu, De Allande, Toomua, Smith, SBW, Basteruad, Roberts etc. Sadly it's not going to be his WC at least three 6n and some tours, he will be at the WC in 4 years time I have no dbout..