England Depth Chart

[Danno]

Except he didn’t when he was available … No doubt he is an excellent player but Toulouse play to his strengths and on the evidence we have, he wasn’t quite able to translate his club performance to test level. He was perfectly good when he played, but not an obvious stand out.

It’s fair to say he was getting better, but to say he would ‘walk straight back in to the side’ isn’t accurate. He’d have a decent shout, but walk in? No.

As always, it’s about balance and I’m not sure Willis’ strengths (over the ball and carrying) are in the areas we need the most.

I seem to remember him making crucial turnovers and scores on the last couple of tests he played. RFU really have been stupid to loose such talent for the sake of preserving a largely dull and bloated Premiership rugby system.

You don't even watch it dude

[Scrumhead]

Except he didn’t when he was available … No doubt he is an excellent player but Toulouse play to his strengths and on the evidence we have, he wasn’t quite able to translate his club performance to test level. He was perfectly good when he played, but not an obvious stand out.

It’s fair to say he was getting better, but to say he would ‘walk straight back in to the side’ isn’t accurate. He’d have a decent shout, but walk in? No.

As always, it’s about balance and I’m not sure Willis’ strengths (over the ball and carrying) are in the areas we need the most.

I seem to remember him making crucial turnovers and scores on the last couple of tests he played. RFU really have been stupid to loose such talent for the sake of preserving a largely dull and bloated Premiership rugby system.

Sorry but this is where you and I always clash … memory/perception isn’t a reliable measure.

Here are the facts.

He has 4 England tries. 1 vs. Georgia and Chile and 2 vs. Italy … the lowest margin of victory was 17 points so I think it would be extremely generous to describe any of them as ‘crucial scores’.

Most of his appearances against the more notable sides have mostly been as a sub (20mins or less) and we lost most of them (one draw vs. NZ). I’m not in any way blaming him for the results, but his turnovers can’t have been that ‘crucial’ either because they didn’t turn those games or enable us to see out them out. I’m sure you’ll say we might have won if he’d started but that would be pure conjecture.

Wasps’ financial mismanagement is not really the RFU’s fault. Yes, overall governance should have been better but, the RFU were never and should never be directly managing a club’s outgoings. Perhaps if the central contracts had existed then, it may have prevented him from leaving but ultimately, I don’t think England have suffered greatly in his self-imposed exile.

[Mikey Brown]

Except he didn’t when he was available … No doubt he is an excellent player but Toulouse play to his strengths and on the evidence we have, he wasn’t quite able to translate his club performance to test level. He was perfectly good when he played, but not an obvious stand out.

It’s fair to say he was getting better, but to say he would ‘walk straight back in to the side’ isn’t accurate. He’d have a decent shout, but walk in? No.

As always, it’s about balance and I’m not sure Willis’ strengths (over the ball and carrying) are in the areas we need the most.

I seem to remember him making crucial turnovers and scores on the last couple of tests he played. RFU really have been stupid to loose such talent for the sake of preserving a largely dull and bloated Premiership rugby system.

Sorry but this is where you and I always clash … memory/perception isn’t a reliable measure.

Here are the facts.

He has 4 England tries. 1 vs. Georgia and Chile and 2 vs. Italy … the lowest margin of victory was 17 points so I think it would be extremely generous to describe any of them as ‘crucial scores’.

Most of his appearances against the more notable sides have mostly been as a sub (20mins or less) and we lost most of them (one draw vs. NZ). I’m not in any way blaming him for the results, but his turnovers can’t have been that ‘crucial’ either because they didn’t turn those games or enable us to see out them out. I’m sure you’ll say we might have won if he’d started but that would be pure conjecture.

Wasps’ financial mismanagement is not really the RFU’s fault. Yes, overall governance should have been better but, the RFU were never and should never be directly managing a club’s outgoings. Perhaps if the central contracts had existed then, it may have prevented him from leaving but ultimately, I don’t think England have suffered greatly in his self-imposed exile.

Facts? Who cares about facts when you’ve got rhetoric.

[Banquo]

Except he didn’t when he was available … No doubt he is an excellent player but Toulouse play to his strengths and on the evidence we have, he wasn’t quite able to translate his club performance to test level. He was perfectly good when he played, but not an obvious stand out.

It’s fair to say he was getting better, but to say he would ‘walk straight back in to the side’ isn’t accurate. He’d have a decent shout, but walk in? No.

As always, it’s about balance and I’m not sure Willis’ strengths (over the ball and carrying) are in the areas we need the most.

I seem to remember him making crucial turnovers and scores on the last couple of tests he played. RFU really have been stupid to loose such talent for the sake of preserving a largely dull and bloated Premiership rugby system.

You don't even watch it dude

[Oakboy]

I'm not going to repeat my opinion of Jack Willis. We have some excellent backrowers. So far, though, none have been an integral part of a GS or RWC winning team. Debating who are the best three out of 9 or 10 candidates is not as important as discussing how every unit of our team improves from the runners-up standard achieved at best so far, including the back row.

If any of the candidates have reached their ceiling there has to be a case for moving on to others who may be capable of raising the collective standard. IMO, T Willis and Pollock come into the latter category. There may well be others. As always, the HC needs to apply judgement and give those he rates sustained opportunities. That was done for Dombrandt without success, of course.

[jngf]

Except he didn’t when he was available … No doubt he is an excellent player but Toulouse play to his strengths and on the evidence we have, he wasn’t quite able to translate his club performance to test level. He was perfectly good when he played, but not an obvious stand out.

It’s fair to say he was getting better, but to say he would ‘walk straight back in to the side’ isn’t accurate. He’d have a decent shout, but walk in? No.

As always, it’s about balance and I’m not sure Willis’ strengths (over the ball and carrying) are in the areas we need the most.

I seem to remember him making crucial turnovers and scores on the last couple of tests he played. RFU really have been stupid to loose such talent for the sake of preserving a largely dull and bloated Premiership rugby system.

You don't even watch it dude

It was actually watching a turgid display at the Ricoh Stadium which put me off

[jngf]

I'm not going to repeat my opinion of Jack Willis. We have some excellent backrowers. So far, though, none have been an integral part of a GS or RWC winning team. Debating who are the best three out of 9 or 10 candidates is not as important as discussing how every unit of our team improves from the runners-up standard achieved at best so far, including the back row.

If any of the candidates have reached their ceiling there has to be a case for moving on to others who may be capable of raising the collective standard. IMO, T Willis and Pollock come into the latter category. There may well be others. As always, the HC needs to apply judgement and give those he rates sustained opportunities. That was done for Dombrandt without success, of course.

Regarding Dombrandt I always thought overall backrow balance was a significant factor in not getting the best out of him. He’s never claimed to be some sort of Billy V 2.0 ( ditto neither did Nathan Hughes) but if paired with a 6 like CCS or Roots and a 7 like Underhill we may yet see him come into his own as a significantly more favourable test 8 option

[Banquo]

I'm not going to repeat my opinion of Jack Willis. We have some excellent backrowers. So far, though, none have been an integral part of a GS or RWC winning team. Debating who are the best three out of 9 or 10 candidates is not as important as discussing how every unit of our team improves from the runners-up standard achieved at best so far, including the back row.

If any of the candidates have reached their ceiling there has to be a case for moving on to others who may be capable of raising the collective standard. IMO, T Willis and Pollock come into the latter category. There may well be others. As always, the HC needs to apply judgement and give those he rates sustained opportunities. That was done for Dombrandt without success, of course.

Regarding Dombrandt I always thought overall backrow balance was a significant factor in not getting the best out of him. He’s never claimed to be some sort of Billy V 2.0 ( ditto neither did Nathan Hughes) but if paired with a 6 like CCS or Roots and a 7 like Underhill we may yet see him come into his own as a significantly more favourable test 8 option

CCS or Roots isn't really like for like. Though not sure why this debate is even happening.

[jngf]

I'm not going to repeat my opinion of Jack Willis. We have some excellent backrowers. So far, though, none have been an integral part of a GS or RWC winning team. Debating who are the best three out of 9 or 10 candidates is not as important as discussing how every unit of our team improves from the runners-up standard achieved at best so far, including the back row.

If any of the candidates have reached their ceiling there has to be a case for moving on to others who may be capable of raising the collective standard. IMO, T Willis and Pollock come into the latter category. There may well be others. As always, the HC needs to apply judgement and give those he rates sustained opportunities. That was done for Dombrandt without success, of course.

Regarding Dombrandt I always thought overall backrow balance was a significant factor in not getting the best out of him. He’s never claimed to be some sort of Billy V 2.0 ( ditto neither did Nathan Hughes) but if paired with a 6 like CCS or Roots and a 7 like Underhill we may yet see him come into his own as a significantly more favourable test 8 option

CCS or Roots isn't really like for like. Though not sure why this debate is even happening.

That’s the beauty of serendipity!

[Puja]

I seem to remember him making crucial turnovers and scores on the last couple of tests he played. RFU really have been stupid to loose such talent for the sake of preserving a largely dull and bloated Premiership rugby system.

You don't even watch it dude

It was actually watching a turgid display at the Ricoh Stadium which put me off

So pretty much 3 years then. The game's changed more than a little bit in the last three years. As have the players.

Puja

[jngf]

You don't even watch it dude

It was actually watching a turgid display at the Ricoh Stadium which put me off

So pretty much 3 years then. The game's changed more than a little bit in the last three years. As have the players.

Puja

I dare say it’s improved ( certainly seeing some of Pollack’s Saints appearances has livened things up) that said I still believe, from the time I started regularly following the England test side from the late 80s and watching Rugby Special pretty much every time it was on from then until the end of the Inverdale tenure that gap between Club and test level in both the amateur and professional periods has remained a vast gulf in terms of quality. Premiership tickets being extortionate for the quality of fare on offer doesn’t help either.