• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

England Training Squad

No need for another 10 when Slade is there.

If Cipriani has ruled himself out with this, Twelvetrees is the most likely to enter back into the picture, you'd think.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Mehhhhh at all our wingers except Nowell and Watson and Roko. Those should be our choice 3 and Wade not too far behind. Yarde is quite some way off being good enough IMO and May too inconsistent
Click to expand...
In order of preference- Nowell, Yarde, Roko, May, Watson
I just can't understand the love in for Watson on the wing I'm afraid- he has played a number of matches now and has done precious little apart from slipping off tackles (even worse than May), he's a full back in my book atm.
Yarde is being hugely underrated also, have people forgotten his NZ performances? (one of the best players on the pitch for England- caused all sorts of problems for the All Blacks) Savea would look poor outside of this years harlequins backline.
I'd take Nowell, Yarde, May (V close with Roko) with Watson as fb cover. In the absence of Tuilagi, a beefy pair of wingers might be more worthwhile.
 
yaboyjj said:
one of the best players on the pitch for England- caused all sorts of problems for the All Blacks) Savea would look poor outside of this years harlequins backline.
Click to expand...

he was very poor, flashes of great/good try but his defence was absolutely awful.
 
goodNumber10 said:
he was very poor, flashes of great/good try but his defence was absolutely awful.
Click to expand...

He slipped off some tackles, sure (if he gets his technique down, he certainly has the bulk needed)- but the whole backline was a shambles for a large part of the second/third test- I'm hesitant to blame positional errors on one player in this instance.
 
yaboyjj said:
He slipped off some tackles, sure (if he gets his technique down, he certainly has the bulk needed)- but the whole backline was a shambles for a large part of the second/third test- I'm hesitant to blame positional errors on one player in this instance.
Click to expand...

I think you're being a little too quick to exonerate him there.

That said, I generally regarded the performances as positive. We have an awful lot of wingers who I think would be embarrassed against NZ in defence. I don't think we have many who could at least return the favour like Yarde has proven he can.
 
Jbobo said:
To be fair, most players don't have the disciplinary record of Hartley and haven't assaulted police officers/members of the public. I do agree that the England management have dealt with it as best they can, they've been exemplary. But they've had little choice to take any other option, calling up Hartley would be too big a risk should one of their Hookers get injured before he can play again (and the very real risk of him single-handedly destroying England's world cup chances in the latter stages, should they make it) and Tuilagi's assault was serious, he was never going to be called up for the World Cup after that. I think most managements if not all would have made the same decision to drop these players.



It certainly wouldn't weaken the team! Retired far too early.
Click to expand...

To be fair Mike Phillips assaulted a couple of doormen . Probably more than just pushing aswell . iirc he didn't get banned ......
 
yaboyjj said:
He slipped off some tackles, sure (if he gets his technique down, he certainly has the bulk needed)- but the whole backline was a shambles for a large part of the second/third test- I'm hesitant to blame positional errors on one player in this instance.
Click to expand...

Don't think anyone is blaming him for it, but there are certain roles in defence that he really didn't fulfill.

I thought in attack he was good, and it's a shame his form dropped off so badly post tour, i've said this i think he'd be a better right wing than left wing and i'd like to see him move - but not at this world cup.
 
Maverick1987 said:
To be fair Mike Phillips assaulted a couple of doormen . Probably more than just pushing aswell . iirc he didn't get banned ......
Click to expand...

Were they female doormen?

Give me a moment while I find all of the instances where Lancaster hasn't banned players for their on and off field misdemeanors...

I'm only half being serious and Phillips has been a Twonk in the past, but I think you're all giving a lot of credit to Lancaster,which is good, but to act like he is holier than all the rest, I.e 'everyone else can learn from him' is pretty much rubbish considering he had little choice in the Hartley case and Tuilagis crime was serious. Like it or not, police officers, especially female ones being assaulted is seen as worse then scuffling with a couple of bouncers (huge amount of them a complete knobs, unrelated of course).

Then take into account what happened at the 2011 World Cup...he kind had to ban Tuilagi. Who incidentally was a *** then as well.
 
Last edited:
Jbobo said:
Were they female doormen?

Give me a moment while I find all of the instances where Lancaster hasn't banned players for their on and off field misdemeanors...

I'm only half being serious and Phillips has been a Twonk in the past, but I think you're all giving a lot of credit to Lancaster,which is good, but to act like he is holier than all the rest, I.e 'everyone else can learn from him' is pretty much rubbish considering he had little choice in the Hartley case and Tuilagis crime was serious. Like it or not, police officers, especially female ones being assaulted is seen as worse then scuffling with a couple of bouncers (huge amount of them a complete knobs, unrelated of course).

Then take into account what happened at the 2011 World Cup...he kind had to ban Tuilagi. Who incidentally was a *** then as well.
Click to expand...

Meh . He didn't have to ban anyone . The citing officer had decided on the punishment for Hartley could have easily been left at that . With Tuilagi that could have been ignored aswell by simply saying it's an off field crime that has been dealt with by the police . Pretty much exactly the same as what NZ did regarding Savea . Lancaster has set a precedence and I'm glad he's sticking to it otherwise he'd end up making himself look a prat like Gatland with "Gatlands law"

I'd be happier obviously if he said what we are going to do is work with Manu as he's a young guy to improve his behaviour . I believe that would probably have worked better than just kicking him to the side too ....

By the way it makes no difference if the were male or female police officers/doormen . The press used that for effect . He didn't smash one of them and break their nose he pushed them which could mean various things . In contrast Mike Phillips was smashed and literally beat up a bouncer causing injury
 
Last edited:
Maverick1987 said:
Meh . He didn't have to ban anyone . The citing officer had decided on the punishment for Hartley could have easily been left at that . With Tuilagi that could have been ignored aswell by simply saying it's an off field crime that has been dealt with by the police . Pretty much exactly the same as what NZ did regarding Savea . Lancaster has set a precedence and I'm glad he's sticking to it otherwise he'd end up making himself look a prat like Gatland with "Gatlands law"

I'd be happier obviously if he said what we are going to do is work with Manu as he's a young guy to improve his behaviour . I believe that would probably have worked better than just kicking him to the side too ....

By the way it makes no difference if the were male or female police officers/doormen . The press used that for effect . He didn't smash one of them and break their nose he pushed them which could mean various things . In contrast Mike Phillips was smashed and literally beat up a bouncer causing injury
Click to expand...

I am in agreement with this.

Managers have taken players they knew would miss games to the World Cup before. It is an option. In any case, Lancaster's statement has completely left the door open on Hartley joining the squad during the World Cup should there be an injury and he match fit, regardless of his discipline issues and last warning. There is nothing of principle in that.

So far, he has had three players have suspensions that would mean they would miss international duty; Clark and Hartley x 2. None of them have served anything more than what the citing officer gave them, despite one man being given a ludicrously, unjustly short ban, and the other being on a final warning. Or, to put it another way, I do not believe the evidence shows Lancaster has *ever* banned or punished a player based on their on field misdemeanours. Even the current case of Hartley only lasts as long as his ban.

As for Tuilagi - I agree with anyone looking at Phillips and Savea and saying "What real difference?" I do see a genuine case for asking whether any other union would have taken that stance.

I believe I've said this before, but I'll say it again - I believe England's moral stance here is sponsor-driven rather than Lancaster-driven. Even if Lancaster really, truly believes with all his soul in this, which I find hard to buy given his attitude to on the field disciplinary issues but am willing to believe for the sake of argument, the sponsors were in the RFU's ear before Lancaster was ever appointed; England's stance was created before Lancaster ever took over.
 
Maverick1987 said:
Meh . He didn't have to ban anyone . The citing officer had decided on the punishment for Hartley could have easily been left at that . With Tuilagi that could have been ignored aswell by simply saying it's an off field crime that has been dealt with by the police . Pretty much exactly the same as what NZ did regarding Savea . Lancaster has set a precedence and I'm glad he's sticking to it otherwise he'd end up making himself look a prat like Gatland with "Gatlands law"

I'd be happier obviously if he said what we are going to do is work with Manu as he's a young guy to improve his behaviour . I believe that would probably have worked better than just kicking him to the side too ....

By the way it makes no difference if the were male or female police officers/doormen . The press used that for effect . He didn't smash one of them and break their nose he pushed them which could mean various things . In contrast Mike Phillips was smashed and literally beat up a bouncer causing injury
Click to expand...

Why bring Gatland into it? 'Gatlands law' as named by the press has nothing to do with player behavior... Completely irrelevant to the discussion and doesn't actually exist.

The precedent was set during the last world cup for England and Tuilagi was one of the problem players, Lancaster had to take the hard stance, or lose all credibility like Johnson, easy decison. If he ignored their most recent violations of the laws of the game/actual real life laws it would pretty much be the stupidest decision ever made by a coach. Regarding Hartley, it isn't even about his atrocious previous offenses or this once, he excluded him simply because it would be a huge risk to have one of your three hookers banned from the first game of a major tournament, Lancaster gave this reasoning himself. An injury to one of the two eligible hookers before or during the game would leave the team hugely exposed. Don't pretend it is because of a higher moral code he holds, he made the smart and correct decision. Any manager/coach would.

I don't care what the 'press said' the fact is that if you lay your hands on an officer you will get punished 2 fold of what you would an 'ordinary citizen' and if that officer is also a woman, then I'm afraid you've even further crossed a line and societally it is completely unacceptable. Of course it makes a difference. Management and staff of rugby teams are not exempt from General social convention and standards. You'd be stupid to think that Lancaster doesn't know this.

By the way Phillips was suspended by Wales and did not beat up a bouncer, he was restrained but did not hurt anyone (provide proof he did cause bodily harm and I'll admit I'm wrong). You're talking crap to try and justify your argument which has no grounding. Also you're bringing up an incident which happened 4 years ago. Regarding him being 'smashed' at least he was outside a night club and not driving a bloody car... You can't compare it anywhere near to what Tuilagi, if you do, you're clearly one eyed.
 
Last edited:
Jbobo said:
I don't care what the 'press said' the fact is that if you lay your hands on an officer you will get punished 2 fold of what you would an 'ordinary citizen' and if that officer is also a woman, then I'm afraid you've even further crossed a line and societally it is completely unacceptable. Of course it makes a difference.
Click to expand...

Why does it make a difference whether the officer is a man or a woman. He shouldn't have done it either way, but just because it is a woman doesn't make it more wrong. That's not really equality, is it?
 
chippieolamus said:
Why does it make a difference whether the officer is a man or a woman. He shouldn't have done it either way, but just because it is a woman doesn't make it more wrong. That's not really equality, is it?
Click to expand...

I think Joboo is right in some ways, striking a woman as Julian Saves did is a huge taboo in society and rightly so.... However there is no proof that Tuilagi struck the female officer and it's been reported quote a lot that he pushed them/shoved them away (which is a little different).

The ban was the right thing, Lancaster has stick to his guns on off field discipline/community role models.

Only St Andre has really fine similar iirc.
 

Similar threads

iINDOMINUSxx
Italy Training Squad
Replies
1
Views
736
Raggs
R
J
Wales Training Squad
5 6 7
Replies
131
Views
16K
AzaMatt
AzaMatt
G
France Training Squad
Replies
12
Views
3K
FrenchFan
FrenchFan
N
England - Squad Announcement Thursday 27th
14 15 16
Replies
307
Views
34K
chippieolamus
C
M
Position Specific: Back Row Training
Replies
8
Views
4K
Five Meters Out
F

Latest posts

Top