England World Cup Squad

[donmcdazzle]

What do you guys make if the England draw? The way it shapes up you essentially have 5 relatively tough games to win in a row against tier 1 sides (Arg, France, quarter, semi, final).

Not sure how this has impacted teams in the past, and I suppose every RWC game is intense. In England's favour is they can probably have a slightly off day against Arg and France and still win given the quality of the team, and with the depth can probably handle a few injuries better than years gone by.

 

[TommiG88]

The BBC are stringing out the quotes from the players overlooked. Now it's Cipriani's turn, but when you look at what he said it is nothing incriminating, but the headline tries to put a negative spin on it.

Don't see this so much with Wales, Scotland and Ireland when leading up to the World Cup.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Think Brown should definitely be there, but cest la vie.
It's just frustrating that EJ spends three years investing heavily in Brown and Care and no one behind them, only to drop them in world cup year so we're scrabbling around for the next cab off the rank.


I'll be honest I hadn't looked at our schedule before now. That's a tough run, and I don't think we can afford to put out weaker sides against Argentina/France because there's three tier 1 sides vying for two spots and we can't take any chances (though in most positions it's more experience levels, than talent levels, that's the dropoff between first and 2nd choice in a position).
Whilst there's always the risk of injury and burnout we'd be pretty battle hardened going forwards.

 

[donmcdazzle]

Think Brown should definitely be there, but cest la vie.
It's just frustrating that EJ spends three years investing heavily in Brown and Care and no one behind them, only to drop them in world cup year so we're scrabbling around for the next cab off the rank.


I'll be honest I hadn't looked at our schedule before now. That's a tough run, and I don't think we can afford to put out weaker sides against Argentina/France because there's three tier 1 sides vying for two spots and we can't take any chances (though in most positions it's more experience levels, than talent levels, that's the dropoff between first and 2nd choice in a position).
Whilst there's always the risk of injury and burnout we'd be pretty battle hardened going forwards.

I think the mental side of it may be the toughest challenge right - 5 weeks in essentially do or die situations, that will be hard to manage in terms of ensuring you don't have a bad game in that bunch. Other teams just have the potential of 3 weeks in a row.

Again, not sure how challenging that is or isn't compared to having easier games in the middle, and I am no sports scientist just thought it was an interesting point of consideration.

The ABs face this sort of challenge when we do the northern tours and go for a grand slam and we have pulled that off a few times so it can obviously be done, similar to the 6 nations grand slam as well (although italy is arguably tier 2). I'm sure Eddie has been plotting to solve the problem as well.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Whilst there's always the risk of injury and burnout we'd be pretty battle hardened going forwards.

We *ought* to be able to see off Arg and Fra, but they are tier 1 and we're still subject to pretty monumental brain farts so after Tonga and the US we'll need to be putting out pretty much full strength all the way.

And while we definitely *ought* to beat Tonga and the US easily they'll be nothing if not physical. You can get injured against anyone.

This is where some of Jones' dafter selections, especially only 2 THPs and 2 SHs could bite. Those 4 players will all be involved to some degree or another in all the games.

If we revert to Ford, Faz as we expect then both of those are on the pitch for most of the time too with only weak cover at 10 or 12.

We know all about Mako, Nowell and Slade's injuries. With their records Manu and Binny will need to be managed carefully too.

It's a tough ask.

 

[MarkyH]

I don't expect to see a Ford, Faz combo till at least the Argentina game. One will start at 10 vs Tonga, and the other vs USA. Tuilagi probably won't start the first two games and we can use them to get Nowell, JJ and Slade up to speed (arrogant assuming Englishman).

After USA we have 9 days till Argentina and another week till France. Then it should be a game a week if we keep winning. This is no different to domestic or the 6 nations. Burnout should not be an issue. Mentally I think it will be beneficial

Every team will be playing their strongest in the knockouts, and in at least two group games. We won't be any different.

 

[Which Tyler]

I don't expect to see a Ford, Faz combo till at least the Argentina game. One will start at 10 vs Tonga, and the other vs USA. Tuilagi probably won't start the first two games and we can use them to get Nowell, JJ and Slade up to speed (arrogant assuming Englishman).

After USA we have 9 days till Argentina and another week till France. Then it should be a game a week if we keep winning. This is no different to domestic or the 6 nations. Burnout should not be an issue. Mentally I think it will be beneficial

Every team will be playing their strongest in the knockouts, and in at least two group games. We won't be any different.

Agreed. Each game is tougher than the previous - which SHOULD allow us to build nicely.
We can mix and match for the first 2; although some poor sod will have to start both matches - but that could easily be the 4th choice flanker or 4th choice lock.
Then it just builds, we SHOULD feel confident about beating both Argentina and France; but neither will just roll over (Unless France are already mathematically out by then) - which seems perfect to me. At that point though, we won't have any short weeks, and we should be able to put out our best team for each match, with changes based solely around people carrying knocks, and maybe slightly different tactics for a specific opponent.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Before the World Cup I thought 10Faz 12 Manu 13 Slade was are best combo. Now everyone else is banging on about Ford and Faz which never really impresses before.

 

[Which Tyler]

Before the World Cup I thought 10Faz 12 Manu 13 Slade was are best combo. Now everyone else is banging on about Ford and Faz which never really impresses before.

Both are better players than they were when we matched the record unbeaten streak.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Plus who knows what Slade will be like on his return from injury with no game time. He'd be a big risk for a not particularly large reward.

I wish Manu and JJ had gotten a proper run out together in the warm-ups though.

 

[Scotty]

Both are better players than they were when we matched the record unbeaten streak.

Plus now with manu at 13 and may wstson/joe Daly as back row they have alot of attscking options and with all Manu's power his best line can be a dummy line creating space but if they drift off him they are losing a quite a few metres.

On Ford faz are better and that means decision making too, to go to the power play or go for the pace out wide.

Faz manu slade works for the same reason.

Theres a good balance to our backline. 2 playmakersf(ford/faz)Slade) 2 power runners(manu joe)nowell) 2 pace(may daly)watson)

 

[FLOBALOB]

Before the World Cup I thought 10Faz 12 Manu 13 Slade was are best combo. Now everyone else is banging on about Ford and Faz which never really impresses before.

I think it still is and it'll probably be the starting combo in the big games.

 

[FLOBALOB]

Both are better players than they were when we matched the record unbeaten streak.

Slades stock has probably increased more than both of them since then.

 

[ncurd]

Sorry I don't see how people don't see how much better our attack is when Ford plays with Farrell than any other option. Ford is better attacking 10 making correct decisions and unlocking defences through that better than Farrell does. Farrell is also better when he plays 12 than 10 with a good fly-half inside him. He works well with Ford and the same happened in the Lions tour. The extra time he gets at 12 as opposed to 10 means he makes some top class decisions as well as the play unfolds.

Both of them absolutely have to start for me we just look so much a better team when they do.

 

[Scotty]

Sorry I don't see how people don't see how much better our attack is when Ford plays with Farrell than any other option. Ford is better attacking 10 making correct decisions and unlocking defences through that better than Farrell does. Farrell is also better when he plays 12 than 10 with a good fly-half inside him. He works well with Ford and the same happened in the Lions tour. The extra time he gets at 12 as opposed to 10 means he makes some top class decisions as well as the play unfolds.

Both of them absolutely have to start for me we just look so much a better team when they do.

I do like the idea of faz manu slade at the start then ford faz manu for the last 20 to unlock a tired defence. But i really do like both combos really.

 

[Which Tyler]

 

[Mumbles119]

View attachment 7380

Wilson in a Sale shirt confuses me at first! Until my poor memory kicked in.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Sorry I don't see how people don't see how much better our attack is when Ford plays with Farrell than any other option. Ford is better attacking 10 making correct decisions and unlocking defences through that better than Farrell does. Farrell is also better when he plays 12 than 10 with a good fly-half inside him. He works well with Ford and the same happened in the Lions tour. The extra time he gets at 12 as opposed to 10 means he makes some top class decisions as well as the play unfolds.

Both of them absolutely have to start for me we just look so much a better team when they do.

The problem i have with this statement is that Farrell never gets a decent 12 to play with. When he had Manu inside him (snigger) our attack looked really good as well. I think we all agree that Ford and Farrell both play different styles but Farrells attack is not a weakness. If we have Farrell, Manu and Slade or JJ at least we can have three good defenders as well, Ford gives too many yards when he eventually brings players down (after he receives help).

 

[ncurd]

The problem i have with this statement is that Farrell never gets a decent 12 to play with. When he had Manu inside him (snigger) our attack looked really good as well. I think we all agree that Ford and Farrell both play different styles but Farrells attack is not a weakness. If we have Farrell, Manu and Slade or JJ at least we can have three good defenders as well, Ford gives too many yards when he eventually brings players down (after he receives help).

Sorry how many defensive woes did we have in the last warm up games? I can't be arsed having the same bloody argument again when we concede a whopping 47 points against Wales and Ireland over 3 games when against tier 1 opposition conceded sub 20points is good work.

For the record I'd like to see Ford, Manu, JJ but it isn't going to happen.

Out of call the combinations we've tried Ford, Farrell + AN Other has consistently been our best line up over the past 4 years the time for experimentation is over. We play whats wins us games and that's the end of argument now.

*grumbles*I swear to god the next person who complains about Ford's tackling....

 

[MarkyH]

Farrells decision making, under pressure, for England has been quite poor recently. With Manu outside him he looked great till the pressure was on.

Ford and Farrell work. Fords decision making helps Faz a lot. It's worked for us greatly with JJ at 13, and should work better with the better carrying threats we have now.

Faz is a Class player at 10 and 12. Ford brings out the best of his game + they are good mates and know each-others game inside out

PS - Fords defence is not that bad, and he probably gives no more meters away than a lot of 10s...