RWC Training Squad

[LongForgotten]

Farrell isn’t worth mentioning as even the likes of ROG would select him.
Mercer has been discarded by two different regimes now. Not sure why given club form but there must be a reason. Rodd has been played by both and has been ok.
VRR is perma-crocked.
Murley might be ok and I would’ve had him before OHC.. but OHC has looked great for LI and shat the bed for Eng, albeit on a very small sample size in a dysfunctional team.
I think T Willy could be the business but he went with Dombo who also looks great for club but shat the bed for England. Who’s to say T Willy wouldn’t do the same - not that I think he would.
You can name names but there’s no one who just screams that they’re a top test player. Ben Earl was Prem player of the year in ‘22 and has looked nothing but average at test level. Pearson has ripped up trees this season but looked average, even if you don’t include that tackle, against Wales. He has to one for the next RWC cycle but he’d only displace T Cuzza or J Willy who are already one of our best players.
Just look at the recent u20 World Cup results and it’ll give you a clue of the quality off the academy conveyor belt recently.
The obviously top EQ Prem test quality players are all in that 33, sadly and imo.

I broadly agree that there aren't (m)any obviously international class players overlooked, but that does reflect on the coaches too. Several Scottish and Welsh starters weren't overwhelmingly obvious selections but after 2/3 years of consistent selection have learned to perform well at international level. The larger player pool means England always have the next big thing and an incumbent who's performing ok gets booted. I think you want someone to get at least 10-15 caps before you judge them.

Reminds me of England test captains where people said Strauss must go for FEC Cook, then Cook for FEC Root, then Root for Stokes... So perhaps our next new wing/8/10 will be the one!

I absolutely agree that players need to get in to double figures before being judged but given that’s an entire international season and more games than Slovenly Bedraggled has had in his entire regime…
Who, since 2019, do you think hasn’t been given long enough in the team to prove their quality?
My point was more asking who is the glaring test quality player(s) that is missing from the squad? I can’t think of anybody.
Welcome to the board.

Thanks! I agree, I don't think there are glaring omissions and while there might be players we'd prefer in, most of them have only come into the frame over the past year so even if they'd been integrated immediately would have struggled to hit 10 caps.

[Oakboy]

South Africa leaving Pollard and Am(!) out owing to injury concerns.....there's confident.

It's quite a contrast with us picking 'hopefully-recovering' players. IMO, if any player is not fully fit for this Saturday he should not be in the squad (Ribban's HIA is an exception). What is the point of build-up matches other than honing your best XV? I would have been seriously pissed off if I'd bought a ticket for last Saturday and travelled to Cardiff to watch that bunch of rejects lose so badly.

[Mellsblue]

South Africa leaving Pollard and Am(!) out owing to injury concerns.....there's confident.

It's quite a contrast with us picking 'hopefully-recovering' players. IMO, if any player is not fully fit for this Saturday he should not be in the squad (Ribban's HIA is an exception). What is the point of build-up matches other than honing your best XV? I would have been seriously pissed off if I'd bought a ticket for last Saturday and travelled to Cardiff to watch that bunch of rejects lose so badly.

How about the contrast of picking four scrumhalfs, four centres, four wingers and one flyhalf?
Is the issue that your two favourites, Hill and Slade, have been left out?

[Which Tyler]

IMO, if any player is not fully fit for this Saturday he should not be in the squad (Ribban's HIA is an exception). What is the point of build-up matches other than honing your best XV?

Meh, we've still got a full month before the start of the tourney, and the easiest pool stages we've ever had (and yes, I know that Argentina, Japan and Samoa are eminently losable given our current form).

So for me, it depends on who isn't fully fit, and how far off being fully fit they are.
1st choice starter with a gap down to 2nd choice is "could play this weekend, but we'd rather not risk it"? - absolutely keep him in the squad.
Newbie 3rd choice player who was a coin-toss ahead of the 4th choice, and who's 3-4 weeks away from fitness (and therefore should be ready for the start of the RWC)? - absolutely jettison them.
Anything in between is somewhere in between.

As far as I'm aware, just because we've announced the squad, doesn't mean we can't tinker with it before the actual date if injuries happen or rehab suffers a set back.

[twitchy]

Dawson agrees with Mells

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66433466

"I'm not convinced that playing the way Steve Borthwick is playing at the moment is good enough to win the World Cup," Dawson added.

Some wild takes from matt here.

[Which Tyler]

"I'm not convinced that playing the way Steve Borthwick is playing at the moment is good enough to win the World Cup," Dawson added.

Some wild takes from matt here.

Not many RWCs can have been won by teams that lose 2/3 of their matches...

[Oakboy]

IMO, if any player is not fully fit for this Saturday he should not be in the squad (Ribban's HIA is an exception). What is the point of build-up matches other than honing your best XV?

Meh, we've still got a full month before the start of the tourney, and the easiest pool stages we've ever had (and yes, I know that Argentina, Japan and Samoa are eminently losable given our current form).

So for me, it depends on who isn't fully fit, and how far off being fully fit they are.
1st choice starter with a gap down to 2nd choice is "could play this weekend, but we'd rather not risk it"? - absolutely keep him in the squad.
Newbie 3rd choice player who was a coin-toss ahead of the 4th choice, and who's 3-4 weeks away from fitness (and therefore should be ready for the start of the RWC)? - absolutely jettison them.
Anything in between is somewhere in between.

As far as I'm aware, just because we've announced the squad, doesn't mean we can't tinker with it before the actual date if injuries happen or rehab suffers a set back.

I get where you are coming from but aren't you 'having it both ways'? If we have mediocre strength in depth (more or less fully accepted), surely the difference between 1st and 2nd choice is narrow. That said, aren't the warm-ups better used building a unit rather than pandering to individuals marginally better than fully fit alternatives?

For example, how is Lawrence going to develop an understanding with Tuilagi if they don't play together? I don't just mean in attack. With the ball being kicked to the opposition by default, their centre pairing is going to be crucial defensively.

[Mikey Brown]

IMO, if any player is not fully fit for this Saturday he should not be in the squad (Ribban's HIA is an exception). What is the point of build-up matches other than honing your best XV?

Meh, we've still got a full month before the start of the tourney, and the easiest pool stages we've ever had (and yes, I know that Argentina, Japan and Samoa are eminently losable given our current form).

So for me, it depends on who isn't fully fit, and how far off being fully fit they are.
1st choice starter with a gap down to 2nd choice is "could play this weekend, but we'd rather not risk it"? - absolutely keep him in the squad.
Newbie 3rd choice player who was a coin-toss ahead of the 4th choice, and who's 3-4 weeks away from fitness (and therefore should be ready for the start of the RWC)? - absolutely jettison them.
Anything in between is somewhere in between.

As far as I'm aware, just because we've announced the squad, doesn't mean we can't tinker with it before the actual date if injuries happen or rehab suffers a set back.

I get where you are coming from but aren't you 'having it both ways'? If we have mediocre strength in depth (more or less fully accepted), surely the difference between 1st and 2nd choice is narrow. That said, aren't the warm-ups better used building a unit rather than pandering to individuals marginally better than fully fit alternatives?

For example, how is Lawrence going to develop an understanding with Tuilagi if they don't play together? I don't just mean in attack. With the ball being kicked to the opposition by default, their centre pairing is going to be crucial defensively.

I’m not sure I follow the logic here? The gap between options could be the same whether that’s a bunch of terrible players or a bunch of great ones.

I can’t believe a Tuilagi and Lawrence pairing (with the wooden soldier at 10) is seriously on the cards.

[Oakboy]

Meh, we've still got a full month before the start of the tourney, and the easiest pool stages we've ever had (and yes, I know that Argentina, Japan and Samoa are eminently losable given our current form).

So for me, it depends on who isn't fully fit, and how far off being fully fit they are.
1st choice starter with a gap down to 2nd choice is "could play this weekend, but we'd rather not risk it"? - absolutely keep him in the squad.
Newbie 3rd choice player who was a coin-toss ahead of the 4th choice, and who's 3-4 weeks away from fitness (and therefore should be ready for the start of the RWC)? - absolutely jettison them.
Anything in between is somewhere in between.

As far as I'm aware, just because we've announced the squad, doesn't mean we can't tinker with it before the actual date if injuries happen or rehab suffers a set back.

I get where you are coming from but aren't you 'having it both ways'? If we have mediocre strength in depth (more or less fully accepted), surely the difference between 1st and 2nd choice is narrow. That said, aren't the warm-ups better used building a unit rather than pandering to individuals marginally better than fully fit alternatives?

For example, how is Lawrence going to develop an understanding with Tuilagi if they don't play together? I don't just mean in attack. With the ball being kicked to the opposition by default, their centre pairing is going to be crucial defensively.

I’m not sure I follow the logic here? The gap between options could be the same whether that’s a bunch of terrible players or a bunch of great ones.

I can’t believe a Tuilagi and Lawrence pairing (with the wooden soldier at 10) is seriously on the cards.

There have been several reports that SB favours that pairing. I'd not have Tuilagi in the squad.

[Oakboy]

South Africa leaving Pollard and Am(!) out owing to injury concerns.....there's confident.

It's quite a contrast with us picking 'hopefully-recovering' players. IMO, if any player is not fully fit for this Saturday he should not be in the squad (Ribban's HIA is an exception). What is the point of build-up matches other than honing your best XV? I would have been seriously pissed off if I'd bought a ticket for last Saturday and travelled to Cardiff to watch that bunch of rejects lose so badly.

How about the contrast of picking four scrumhalfs, four centres, four wingers and one flyhalf?
Is the issue that your two favourites, Hill and Slade, have been left out?

I'd pick both. At least they are fit. The main issue I have is not using practice matches for practice. It seems fundamental to me that if we don't have 23 world beating individuals, we should be working flat out to improve the team unit so that the whole is better than the sum of its parts. Where else do we possibly have an edge?

[FKAS]

It's quite a contrast with us picking 'hopefully-recovering' players. IMO, if any player is not fully fit for this Saturday he should not be in the squad (Ribban's HIA is an exception). What is the point of build-up matches other than honing your best XV? I would have been seriously pissed off if I'd bought a ticket for last Saturday and travelled to Cardiff to watch that bunch of rejects lose so badly.

How about the contrast of picking four scrumhalfs, four centres, four wingers and one flyhalf?
Is the issue that your two favourites, Hill and Slade, have been left out?

I'd pick both. At least they are fit. The main issue I have is not using practice matches for practice. It seems fundamental to me that if we don't have 23 world beating individuals, we should be working flat out to improve the team unit so that the whole is better than the sum of its parts. Where else do we possibly have an edge?

There's four friendlies and a squad of 33 to get game time. I don't see the mad rush to play the first XV for four games before the tournament. Game one was an experiment and away from home in the first warm up game that's par for the course. At home I'd expect something stronger but maybe still some experimentation. Game three a bit of rotation but some first choice units still in there with the main body of the expected 23 involved and then first XV in the final game as we look to peak for the world cup.

If we get an unfortunate injury in the final friendly there's not much point then looking around for somebody who hasn't played since the end of the season as friendlies were only there for the first choice 23.

[Mellsblue]

It's quite a contrast with us picking 'hopefully-recovering' players. IMO, if any player is not fully fit for this Saturday he should not be in the squad (Ribban's HIA is an exception). What is the point of build-up matches other than honing your best XV? I would have been seriously pissed off if I'd bought a ticket for last Saturday and travelled to Cardiff to watch that bunch of rejects lose so badly.

How about the contrast of picking four scrumhalfs, four centres, four wingers and one flyhalf?
Is the issue that your two favourites, Hill and Slade, have been left out?

I'd pick both. At least they are fit. The main issue I have is not using practice matches for practice. It seems fundamental to me that if we don't have 23 world beating individuals, we should be working flat out to improve the team unit so that the whole is better than the sum of its parts. Where else do we possibly have an edge?

I know you’d replace Tuilagi with Slade but beyond that which of the injured would you drop and to be replaced by who? Dropping a superior player for a short term niggle, which is what they all are, seems a strange idea to me.
As for the practice argument, other than Argentina the group matches should all be practice for the knockout stage - not that I’m under any apprehension that were a top class international team. Assuming the 1st XV get one run out prior to Arg, I’d say we’re good.

[Oakboy]

How about the contrast of picking four scrumhalfs, four centres, four wingers and one flyhalf?
Is the issue that your two favourites, Hill and Slade, have been left out?

I'd pick both. At least they are fit. The main issue I have is not using practice matches for practice. It seems fundamental to me that if we don't have 23 world beating individuals, we should be working flat out to improve the team unit so that the whole is better than the sum of its parts. Where else do we possibly have an edge?

I know you’d replace Tuilagi with Slade but beyond that which of the injured would you drop and to be replaced by who? Dropping a superior player for a short term niggle, which is what they all are, seems a strange idea to me.
As for the practice argument, other than Argentina the group matches should all be practice for the knockout stage - not that I’m under any apprehension that were a top class international team. Assuming the 1st XV get one run out prior to Arg, I’d say we’re good.

Short-term niggle? Billy V? I'd certainly have T Willis in for him and I'd have another 8, probably Mercer. In fact, if I was going to take a punt on a player not fully fit, it would be Launchbury.

Assuming Chessum and Martin are going to be in the 23, how many matches have they each played? You'd be happy with both getting no game time in the warm-ups? When do they develop international nous? When do they build resilience to recover from mistakes or lapses in confidence? Just about our classiest player is Itoje. He is essential to our team unit. Even he needs time to develop an understanding with his 2nd row partner - and whoever is the bench lock because Itoje always has to do the 80.

[Oakboy]

How about the contrast of picking four scrumhalfs, four centres, four wingers and one flyhalf?
Is the issue that your two favourites, Hill and Slade, have been left out?

I'd pick both. At least they are fit. The main issue I have is not using practice matches for practice. It seems fundamental to me that if we don't have 23 world beating individuals, we should be working flat out to improve the team unit so that the whole is better than the sum of its parts. Where else do we possibly have an edge?

There's four friendlies and a squad of 33 to get game time. I don't see the mad rush to play the first XV for four games before the tournament. Game one was an experiment and away from home in the first warm up game that's par for the course. At home I'd expect something stronger but maybe still some experimentation. Game three a bit of rotation but some first choice units still in there with the main body of the expected 23 involved and then first XV in the final game as we look to peak for the world cup.

If we get an unfortunate injury in the final friendly there's not much point then looking around for somebody who hasn't played since the end of the season as friendlies were only there for the first choice 23.

Don't whinge about discipline, handling errors and defensive alignment mistakes later, then. IF our players are ordinary individuals might they just be more prone to error than world-class ones? That implies more practice needed perhaps.

[Which Tyler]

I get where you are coming from but aren't you 'having it both ways'?

Of course I am - that's why I put both ways (and everything in between).
Because I don't see the point in being dogmatic about it.

If Jamie George picked up a niggle in training a week ago, but was likely to be fit for Ireland next week, then he would absolutely fit into option 1 above. He's indispensible, and will be fit for the RWC, so I would see no reason to ditch him, just because he'd miss 1 match playing alongside Genge and Sinckler.

If Arundell was 50:50 to be fit for Argentina in a month's time, whilst he was already a toss-up with the equally inexperienced Murley (say), then I wouldn't personally pick Arundell.

Those are different hypothetical situations and require more nuance than "if not 100% fit 5 weeks before they need to be fit, then I wouldn't select them selected"

[Oakboy]

I get where you are coming from but aren't you 'having it both ways'?

Of course I am - that's why I put both ways (and everything in between).
Because I don't see the point in being dogmatic about it.

If Jamie George picked up a niggle in training a week ago, but was likely to be fit for Ireland next week, then he would absolutely fit into option 1 above. He's indispensible, and will be fit for the RWC, so I would see no reason to ditch him, just because he'd miss 2 matches playing alongside Genge and Sinckler.

If Arundell was 50:50 to be fit for Argentina in a month's time, whilst he was already a toss-up with the equally inexperienced Murley (say), then I wouldn't personally pick Arundell.

Those are different hypothetical situations and require more nuance than "if not 100% fit 5 weeks before they need to be fit, then I wouldn't select them selected"

WT, there is a world of difference between a a short-term minor niggle and recovery from a long-term injury. You know that far better than me. I'd not risk a guess on supposed progress for the latter from the day the 33 was announced.

[Mellsblue]

I'd pick both. At least they are fit. The main issue I have is not using practice matches for practice. It seems fundamental to me that if we don't have 23 world beating individuals, we should be working flat out to improve the team unit so that the whole is better than the sum of its parts. Where else do we possibly have an edge?

I know you’d replace Tuilagi with Slade but beyond that which of the injured would you drop and to be replaced by who? Dropping a superior player for a short term niggle, which is what they all are, seems a strange idea to me.
As for the practice argument, other than Argentina the group matches should all be practice for the knockout stage - not that I’m under any apprehension that were a top class international team. Assuming the 1st XV get one run out prior to Arg, I’d say we’re good.

Short-term niggle? Billy V? I'd certainly have T Willis in for him and I'd have another 8, probably Mercer. In fact, if I was going to take a punt on a player not fully fit, it would be Launchbury.

Assuming Chessum and Martin are going to be in the 23, how many matches have they each played? You'd be happy with both getting no game time in the warm-ups? When do they develop international nous? When do they build resilience to recover from mistakes or lapses in confidence? Just about our classiest player is Itoje. He is essential to our team unit. Even he needs time to develop an understanding with his 2nd row partner - and whoever is the bench lock because Itoje always has to do the 80.

I’m guessing the medics who actually know what’s going on have given the green light on Billy, not that I wouldn’t have had T Willy in for Earl.
Chessum was immediately one of our best players and dovetailed nicely with Itoje before the injury. I can see why he’s been picked and, as with Billy, there must’ve been guarantees from the medics. What is Martin’s injury?
From what I’ve read, the squad has been picked this early, necessitating the selection of currently injured players, so camp can move from a battle for selection to working on cohesion which I’m guessing you’d agree with.

[Which Tyler]

WT, there is a world of difference between a a short-term minor niggle and recovery from a long-term injury. You know that far better than me. I'd not risk a guess on supposed progress for the latter from the day the 33 was announced.

Of course I do; but the conversation, or at least, my part in it, was generalities and hypotheticals, not specifics to named players.

I was taking words like "if any player is not fully fit for this Saturday he should not be in the squad" to mean that "if any player is not fully fit for this Saturday he should not be in the squad", not "Tuilagi has had too many injuries, and Billy V has been injured for too long too recently, and therefore shouldn't be in the squad"

[fivepointer]

You'd really want our first choice XV to be available for the final warm up game against Fiji.

We have Argentina first up and that is going to be our hardest pool game so you would hope the team will have had a run out before that match.

Wouldnt want to take a player to the WC who hasnt featured at all in the warm ups.

[p/d]

Stuff it.

Jones gone.
Dan, Rodd, Chessum, Ribbans & Martin in squad
No Dombrandt and one of the Willis boys in.

Behind that. Ford, Lawrence, Daly, Manu, Arundel and a player who can catch a ball.

on the flip side, actual physicality up front. We talk a good talk but we often get bullied.
9 berth (shambles)
Risk of the F&F 10/12 combo.
Wing


So on balance I am getting behind this campaign and will realign my negativity towards Wigglesworth and let Strapon Bendover lead us to victory!

[FKAS]

and let Strapon Bendover lead us to victory!

[Mikey Brown]

To counter a question with a question...which potential test talents has he given more than a game or two? We have Billy, Marler, Tuilagi, to name three, who have been picked a lot - or parachuted in last minute in front of players who are playing better at the time - above potential test players like Tom Willis, Mercer, Rodd, VRR, Murley, who have either hardly had a look in, or have had 1 game, or maybe 2.

Eddie's big thing was to bring players into squad for what seemed like 2 years before they either got into the actual squad or were cast off.

And I've not mentioned Farrell once!

Farrell isn’t worth mentioning as even the likes of ROG would select him.
Mercer has been discarded by two different regimes now. Not sure why given club form but there must be a reason. Rodd has been played by both and has been ok.
VRR is perma-crocked.
Murley might be ok and I would’ve had him before OHC.. but OHC has looked great for LI and shat the bed for Eng, albeit on a very small sample size in a dysfunctional team.
I think T Willy could be the business but he went with Dombo who also looks great for club but shat the bed for England. Who’s to say T Willy wouldn’t do the same - not that I think he would.
You can name names but there’s no one who just screams that they’re a top test player. Ben Earl was Prem player of the year in ‘22 and has looked nothing but average at test level. Pearson has ripped up trees this season but looked average, even if you don’t include that tackle, against Wales. He has to one for the next RWC cycle but he’d only displace T Cuzza or J Willy who are already one of our best players.
Just look at the recent u20 World Cup results and it’ll give you a clue of the quality off the academy conveyor belt recently.
The obviously top EQ Prem test quality players are all in that 33, sadly and imo.

I broadly agree that there aren't (m)any obviously international class players overlooked, but that does reflect on the coaches too. Several Scottish and Welsh starters weren't overwhelmingly obvious selections but after 2/3 years of consistent selection have learned to perform well at international level. The larger player pool means England always have the next big thing and an incumbent who's performing ok gets booted. I think you want someone to get at least 10-15 caps before you judge them.

Interesting point. I'm not suggesting England are crying over the loss of Chris Harris to Scotland (and currently I'm 50/50 whether I'd have him in the squad at all) but he was probably 20th choice for England, at best, when selected for Scotland and became a B&I Lion. It was a weird tour and Gatland seemed to be unravelling a bit, but he is undoubtedly a world class defender now after taking a while to find his feet. It's the strange flipside of having so many options available to England that some players can't be given the time they might need to bed in.

There's no obvious solution to that but it has been frustrating the inconsistency over Eddie's reign, with many players dipping in and out without the team seeming to learn much about their quality.

I'm glad Borthwick gave Dombrant a proper run, for instance. I'm disappointed for him with how it went, but at least we know where he stands as an England player. I thought he'd reached the same conclusion with Malins but clearly there is something we're not seeing - though he is a good kick chaser and often in the right spot to finish tries.

[Mikey Brown]

Behind that. Ford, Lawrence, Daly, Manu, Arundel and a player who can catch a ball.

In any particular configuration or are we back to Eddie free-form jazz quintet idea?

[p/d]

Behind that. Ford, Lawrence, Daly, Manu, Arundel and a player who can catch a ball.

In any particular configuration or are we back to Eddie free-form jazz quintet idea?

Looking for positives in the back line. Players that could have an impact, (I should have added Smith). Think we have enough options to mix it up behind the pack without becoming negative.............. though this doesn't eliminate the elephant in the room

[fivepointer]

some interesting stuff here -