RWC Training Squad

[Mellsblue]

and 7

He’s good but he can’t cover two positions at once

I was thinking 3...

Tight head?!!!?

[Puja]

For my opinion, I'd say we need 3 of each front row and probably only 4 locks (if Lawes is there to cover in extremis), which makes room for 5 back row. As such, I'd drop Mako, Walker, Ribbans (if Chessum's fit, otherwise Chessum), Earl, and then a straight shootout between Ludlam/Pearson/Dombrandt/Willis/BillyV based on camp form to get the last two places on the plane.

For the backs, it seems more straightforward - drop Porter, Malins, and probably Marcus Smith (on the basis that we don't need 3 specialist 10s). There is an argument for losing another winger and keeping another back row, but I don't know who that would be - possibly May/Cokanasiga, but it will depend on what they've been doing in camp.

Puja

Camp performance must be crucial at this point. Looking at your lists, I'd doubt that Malins will be discarded based on recent selections.

I'd not take Coka, Tuilagi or Billy V because I think all three represent a battering-ram fetish that none can satisfy any more, even if there was an argument for them in the past. In the current scene pace and versatility just seem more important.

The No 8 position is probably the most critical of the camp rating positions. I could understand Billy V being retained if Willis and Dombrandt have not impressed. I'd not have Earl any higher than you in the flankers' list but I suppose he could offer No 8 back-up, just like Curry.

I don't like the SH line-up.

It's going to be fascinating.

Yeah, you're bang on with the bolded bits. Steel Broadsword could drop pretty much any 10 people he wants from that squad and I'd probably back him on the basis that we can't see who's been performing in camp and that is the most important thing out of anything.

If Manu/Coka/BillyV are retained, I want it to be on the basis that they are currently capable and ready to make dents and are in such form that they will pose a threat and make room for the versatile pace around them. I think there is still a place for a battering ram or two, but I only want them if they're capable of delivering now, not if we're just hopeful that they might possibly be able to deliver if we give them a chance.

Frankly, if a full Aled Walters training camp isn't enough to get them right, then they're a busted flush and done for going forwards as far as England is concerned.

Puja

[16th man]

For my opinion, I'd say we need 3 of each front row and probably only 4 locks (if Lawes is there to cover in extremis), which makes room for 5 back row. As such, I'd drop Mako, Walker, Ribbans (if Chessum's fit, otherwise Chessum), Earl, and then a straight shootout between Ludlam/Pearson/Dombrandt/Willis/BillyV based on camp form to get the last two places on the plane.

For the backs, it seems more straightforward - drop Porter, Malins, and probably Marcus Smith (on the basis that we don't need 3 specialist 10s). There is an argument for losing another winger and keeping another back row, but I don't know who that would be - possibly May/Cokanasiga, but it will depend on what they've been doing in camp.

Puja

Camp performance must be crucial at this point. Looking at your lists, I'd doubt that Malins will be discarded based on recent selections.

I'd not take Coka, Tuilagi or Billy V because I think all three represent a battering-ram fetish that none can satisfy any more, even if there was an argument for them in the past. In the current scene pace and versatility just seem more important.

The No 8 position is probably the most critical of the camp rating positions. I could understand Billy V being retained if Willis and Dombrandt have not impressed. I'd not have Earl any higher than you in the flankers' list but I suppose he could offer No 8 back-up, just like Curry.

I don't like the SH line-up.

It's going to be fascinating.

To see if we can scrape out of the group or not?

[jngf]

I can see a Ludlam, J Willis & Billy backrow as covering all bases.
Though I am a fan of the flair and pace Dombrandt brings, so horses for courses

Tom Curry will start if fit.

I’m not trying to knock him but is that really such a foregone conclusion? Assuming it is, if Curry did start I’d prefer him at 6 with Willis at 7 . This would be imo though somewhat of an injustice to Ludlam who really has been a class, creative and athtletic 6 option doing all Lawes could in a backrow context but much, much more.,,

[FKAS]

Battering fetish or not I'd take Manu as a back up to Lawrence in the midfield. We look a lot better with a direct runner in there. Unless we are going to use 2 try Guy in that role in which case Manu can stay at Sale.

Cokanasiga is supposedly in the best shape he's ever been physically. I'm interested to see if that brings more pace and agility to his game so he's more than just a crash option.

[jngf]

Battering fetish or not I'd take Manu as a back up to Lawrence in the midfield. We look a lot better with a direct runner in there. Unless we are going to use 2 try Guy in that role in which case Manu can stay at Sale.

Cokanasiga is supposedly in the best shape he's ever been physically. I'm interested to see if that brings more pace and agility to his game so he's more than just a crash option.

If we could get more direct running from our locks (doing the sort of stuff an on form Billy or Manu could ) we’d be in a good place. Can we develop this level of physicality in at least one of our second row options? Lawes if any of them seems to able to do this, …to an extent at least

[Danno]

Lawes has not started at lock for club or country in at least 3 years I believe, and he's been quite clear about not wishing to play there again.

[FKAS]

Battering fetish or not I'd take Manu as a back up to Lawrence in the midfield. We look a lot better with a direct runner in there. Unless we are going to use 2 try Guy in that role in which case Manu can stay at Sale.

Cokanasiga is supposedly in the best shape he's ever been physically. I'm interested to see if that brings more pace and agility to his game so he's more than just a crash option.

If we could get more direct running from our locks (doing the sort of stuff an on form Billy or Manu could ) we’d be in a good place. Can we develop this level of physicality in at least one of our second row options? Lawes if any of them seems to able to do this, …to an extent at least

Chessum carries fairly well. Martin has his moments but I'd say it's his biggest work on. Ribbans can certainly offer a bit in that department and Hill close to the line was deadly for Chiefs.

It's a bit basic but being able to run a powerful ball carrier first phase isn't half helpful in creating space for the rest of the backline. Particularly if they run over the flyhalf on the first carry the 12 will always be edging closer to his 10 than supporting his 13.

[Scrumhead]

Battering fetish or not I'd take Manu as a back up to Lawrence in the midfield. We look a lot better with a direct runner in there. Unless we are going to use 2 try Guy in that role in which case Manu can stay at Sale.

Cokanasiga is supposedly in the best shape he's ever been physically. I'm interested to see if that brings more pace and agility to his game so he's more than just a crash option.

If we could get more direct running from our locks (doing the sort of stuff an on form Billy or Manu could ) we’d be in a good place. Can we develop this level of physicality in at least one of our second row options? Lawes if any of them seems to able to do this, …to an extent at least

I agree with the sentiment, but there’s no point wishing for wishing from something that simply doesn’t exist. I’m not just talking about England here either … no one has locks who carry like a top centre or number 8.

From a purely England POV, the locks definitely need to improve their carrying contribution, but a more realistic expectation is for them to be more regularly breaking the gainline and attracting defenders. IMO, the real key is quick ball, if defenders aren’t fully set or are already retreating, even average carriers will make dents.

[Which Tyler]

Cokanasiga is supposedly in the best shape he's ever been physically. I'm interested to see if that brings more pace and agility to his game so he's more than just a crash option.

I just wish we could get away from this mindset; with Coka especially.

He's plenty quick enough - though no Johnny May, and plenty agile enough - though no Shane Williams.
But he is not and never has been a bosher. Using Coka as a crash ball is something that everyone seems to get worked up about, but it's really not what his game is based upon, and frankly, he's not very good at it. But people can't get past asking him to run into contact, when all his best work is about not doing that.

[Oakboy]

Cokanasiga is supposedly in the best shape he's ever been physically. I'm interested to see if that brings more pace and agility to his game so he's more than just a crash option.

I just wish we could get away from this mindset; with Coka especially.

He's plenty quick enough - though no Johnny May, and plenty agile enough - though no Shane Williams.
But he is not and never has been a bosher. Using Coka as a crash ball is something that everyone seems to get worked up about, but it's really not what his game is based upon, and frankly, he's not very good at it. But people can't get past asking him to run into contact, when all his best work is about not doing that.

As i see it, the snag is that he does not compare favourably with other wing options apart from having a size advantage. Given similar on-field scenarios he might run through tackles rather than around them. In high-ball chases his height might help. In actual all-round effectiveness though, where does he stand in the wing heirarchy? Is he a better try-scoring threat than Daly, Watson or May? Is he a better defender? Does he offer FB cover? I'm not sure what the case is for his inclusion if you remove the physical impact attribute.

[Which Tyler]

All of which is fair.
I'd say that his physical impact is reasonable, and probably higher than most of the backs there, but not by as much as it "should be" based on being a big guy.
His stand out as a winger, is his hands, doing enough in the tackle to get an offload away, keeping the ball alive for someone else.
His physicality is most useful for attracting defenders onto himself, buying a little more time on the ball for his OC, which someone like JJ (of old) could make hay with, but a Slade probably can't - it's also a trick that's unlikely to work against better quality, international defences.

TBH, if that's not enough of a point of difference, then drop him.
Alternatively, if the coaching crew want him to a big impact player, then retrain him to be a big impact player; don't select him for one thing, and then ask him to do a different job that he's not particularly good at.
In the same way that you shouldn't pick Dombrandt / Mercer and ask them to be prime Billy, or pick Ford/Smith and ask them to be Farrell etc etc

As for try scoring - he's got a knack, and however much criticism he gets for some of them walk-ins, all wingers get walk-ins occasionally, and there comes a point where you pick the "lucky" general over the "good" general

[Puja]

All of which is fair.
I'd say that his physical impact is reasonable, and probably higher than most of the backs there, but not by as much as it "should be" based on being a big guy.
His stand out as a winger, is his hands, doing enough in the tackle to get an offload away, keeping the ball alive for someone else.
His physicality is most useful for attracting defenders onto himself, buying a little more time on the ball for his OC, which someone like JJ (of old) could make hay with, but a Slade probably can't - it's also a trick that's unlikely to work against better quality, international defences.

TBH, if that's not enough of a point of difference, then drop him.
Alternatively, if the coaching crew want him to a big impact player, then retrain him to be a big impact player; don't select him for one thing, and then ask him to do a different job that he's not particularly good at.

As for try scoring - he's got a knack, and however much criticism he gets for some of them walk-ins, all wingers get walk-ins occasionally, and there comes a point where you pick the "lucky" general over the "good" general

I think it very much depends how you define "crash ball" and goes back very much to our use of Manu at a lot of times over the last 12 years. If you want to wind him up and send him into a prepared wall of tacklers, then it is a terrible use of him - yes, there will be occasions where he barges through and that will excite pundits, fans, and some coaches, because they remember that one time he ran over that dude and it was great, and forget the ten times that he hit the wall of tacklers and made maybe a metre before presenting slow ball. It is a terrible plan to send him on a hard line cutting back against the grain to where the forwards are waiting.

However, there is a lot of use in using either of them as a direct physical threat wider out. Run Cokanasiga against the opposition pack and he'll get bounced, run him at the gap between 10/12 or 12/13 and suddenly everyone's paying a lot of attention to the big guy because he won't be stopped with anything but a full shoulder contact. He's a great physical impact option if you're running him at a gap or a potential gap, cause he does have the power to go through anything half-hearted and creates space if defences get drawn in on him.

Like you said, better quality international defences are unlikely to be broken by sending him running in to bosh them to the tune of a bugler playing charge, but I'd be very interested to see if Borthwick/Wigglesworth/et al can recreate what they did with Ford and Nadolo in our title-winning season and use the gainline decision-making and the threat of the big man running at arms to cause havoc.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

I'd be very interested to see if Borthwick/Wigglesworth/et al can recreate what they did with Ford and Nadolo in our title-winning season and use the gainline decision-making and the threat of the big man running at arms to cause havoc.

That would be very fun to watch

[Oakboy]

I think we are in for some grim watching. Wigglesworth as coach, together with the mentality of the three SHs in the squad means non-stop box-kicking. Any ball reaching the FH will be launched skywards with the occasional pop-up to the batterers.

I suspect it will be reasonably effective in terms of avoiding defeat till the later stages.

[Which Tyler]

That sounds both more realistic, and less fun to watch

[Scrumhead]

Youngs, yes. JvP, kind of. However, I definitely wouldn’t say Danny Care’s first instinct is to box kick.

I do think you’re broadly correct on the game plan, but it might not be totally ‘grim’ though. With the time available, I think it was always likely that Borthwick would go with a straightforward style of play based upon the kick chase. However, I do think we have some players who are very well suited to that. It isn’t really what I want to see, but I think it could be effective.

I also think Borthwick is a bit mischaracterised as a pure pragmatist. Tigers played some conservative rugby, but they also played some good running rugby at the right times. If he can replicate that with England, he’ll be on to something.

The thing is, we’ve gone from Eddie who thought he was a clever dick and confused everybody to Borthwick who seems to be doing the opposite. I know what I’d rather and frankly, if we’re winning, I’ll forgive some ugly rugby.

[FKAS]

I think we are in for some grim watching. Wigglesworth as coach, together with the mentality of the three SHs in the squad means non-stop box-kicking. Any ball reaching the FH will be launched skywards with the occasional pop-up to the batterers.

I suspect it will be reasonably effective in terms of avoiding defeat till the later stages.

Wiggy's brief tenure as head coach saw Tigers beat Chiefs 62-19, Bristol 46-24, Glaws 26-5, Bath 48-27 and LI 25-22. Wasn't like his team shut up shop and just kicked for 3.

Danny Care is definitely not a box kicking first scrum half as Scrumhead says. Australia last summer demonstrated that.

I'd expect us to attack from a solid foundation but attack with some ambition. Problem has been getting that solid foundation in place so far.

[Banquo]

He’s good but he can’t cover two positions at once

I was thinking 3...

Tight head?!!!?

obvs

[Banquo]

I can see a Ludlam, J Willis & Billy backrow as covering all bases.
Though I am a fan of the flair and pace Dombrandt brings, so horses for courses

Tom Curry will start if fit.

I’m not trying to knock him but is that really such a foregone conclusion? Assuming it is, if Curry did start I’d prefer him at 6 with Willis at 7 . This would be imo though somewhat of an injustice to Ludlam who really has been a class, creative and athtletic 6 option doing all Lawes could in a backrow context but much, much more.,,

Ludlam v Lawes v Curry is chalk v cheese v ....er hummous.

[Banquo]

Battering fetish or not I'd take Manu as a back up to Lawrence in the midfield. We look a lot better with a direct runner in there. Unless we are going to use 2 try Guy in that role in which case Manu can stay at Sale.

Cokanasiga is supposedly in the best shape he's ever been physically. I'm interested to see if that brings more pace and agility to his game so he's more than just a crash option.

shock horror in handy having a runner at 12 probe...

[Banquo]

Battering fetish or not I'd take Manu as a back up to Lawrence in the midfield. We look a lot better with a direct runner in there. Unless we are going to use 2 try Guy in that role in which case Manu can stay at Sale.

Cokanasiga is supposedly in the best shape he's ever been physically. I'm interested to see if that brings more pace and agility to his game so he's more than just a crash option.

If we could get more direct running from our locks (doing the sort of stuff an on form Billy or Manu could ) we’d be in a good place. Can we develop this level of physicality in at least one of our second row options? Lawes if any of them seems to able to do this, …to an extent at least

It's a bit basic but being able to run a powerful ball carrier first phase isn't half helpful in creating space for the rest of the backline. Particularly if they run over the flyhalf on the first carry the 12 will always be edging closer to his 10 than supporting his 13.

no....surely not.

[Banquo]

Cokanasiga is supposedly in the best shape he's ever been physically. I'm interested to see if that brings more pace and agility to his game so he's more than just a crash option.

I just wish we could get away from this mindset; with Coka especially.

He's plenty quick enough - though no Johnny May, and plenty agile enough - though no Shane Williams.
But he is not and never has been a bosher. Using Coka as a crash ball is something that everyone seems to get worked up about, but it's really not what his game is based upon, and frankly, he's not very good at it. But people can't get past asking him to run into contact, when all his best work is about not doing that.

agreed- his best skill combo is being a bit quick, being a physical threat, but having good hands.

[Banquo]

All of which is fair.
I'd say that his physical impact is reasonable, and probably higher than most of the backs there, but not by as much as it "should be" based on being a big guy.
His stand out as a winger, is his hands, doing enough in the tackle to get an offload away, keeping the ball alive for someone else.
His physicality is most useful for attracting defenders onto himself, buying a little more time on the ball for his OC, which someone like JJ (of old) could make hay with, but a Slade probably can't - it's also a trick that's unlikely to work against better quality, international defences.

TBH, if that's not enough of a point of difference, then drop him.
Alternatively, if the coaching crew want him to a big impact player, then retrain him to be a big impact player; don't select him for one thing, and then ask him to do a different job that he's not particularly good at.

As for try scoring - he's got a knack, and however much criticism he gets for some of them walk-ins, all wingers get walk-ins occasionally, and there comes a point where you pick the "lucky" general over the "good" general

I think it very much depends how you define "crash ball" and goes back very much to our use of Manu at a lot of times over the last 12 years. If you want to wind him up and send him into a prepared wall of tacklers, then it is a terrible use of him

Puja

But its really not a terrible use if he or anyone ties in 3 tacklers and you get quick ball. The issue is when that's the exclusive use.

[Banquo]

I'd be very interested to see if Borthwick/Wigglesworth/et al can recreate what they did with Ford and Nadolo in our title-winning season and use the gainline decision-making and the threat of the big man running at arms to cause havoc.

That would be very fun to watch

and not terribly hard to set up. The difficult bit is starting Ford and leaving Faz totally out of the equation apparently.