Countdown: Day Thirteen

The England squad has been announced and the speculation is over - now, let the rage begin! Ok, lets not. I could, but I'm not sure anyone actually wants to read about every mistake I think Lancaster has made. Lets just discuss the squad and stuff. 

First off, the actual squad:

Forwards:
Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints, 10 caps), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 51 caps), Joe Marler (Harlequins, 32 caps), Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 22 caps), David Wilson (Bath Rugby, 43 caps), Jamie George (Saracens, 1 cap), Rob Webber (Bath Rugby, 13 caps), Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 23 caps), George Kruis (Saracens, 8 caps), Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 23 caps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 39 caps), Geoff Parling (Exeter Chiefs, 24 caps). James Haskell (Wasps, 60 caps), Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby, 28 caps), Chris Robshaw (captain, Harlequins, 38 caps), Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 18 caps), Tom Wood (Northampton Saints, 37 caps)

Backs:
Danny Care (Harlequins, 52 caps), Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens, 22 caps), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 48 caps), Owen Farrell (Saracens, 30 caps), George Ford (Bath Rugby, 12 caps), Brad Barritt (Saracens, 22 caps), Sam Burgess (Bath Rugby, 1 cap), Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 12 caps), Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 1 cap), Mike Brown (Harlequins, 38 caps), Alex Goode (Saracens, 18 caps), Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby, 15 caps), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 9 caps), Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, 10 caps)

Right now, I don't feel too arsed about who didn't make it, in that anyone who didn't make it was only really battling to play Uruguay anyway. Do I think Cipriani should have gone? Yes, I think he'd  have been in my 23 actually, but since Lancaster clearly didn't want him there, I'll have to trust he knows what he's doing. Attwood is unfortunate to miss out as the only lock with a real impact in the tight and I'd have liked him as an impact sub, but there we go. Cowan-Dickie wasn't ready, Corbisiero hasn't recovered enough, Easter is unlucky to be behind two great players, Clark is unlucky that Lancaster doesn't rate him that highly, while Burrell and Twelvetrees have made too many errors. So be it. They were only going to play Uruguay anyway most like.

What do we have then?

The good points are the tight five are very quick for their positions, by and large, and won't give away much in defence. We'll get some real carrying impact out of our bench front row and presumably whichever of the Flowerpot Men doesn't start. In the backs, there's a lot of pace and if we can work the ball wide quickly, we'll cause trouble. Youngs and Ford looked a decent combo in the spring, really working the fringes. Both Ford and Farrell are 80pc kickers this season, so I imagine we'll take our points when on offer.

The bad is that outside of front row subs and the flowerpot men, we don't really offer impressive physical ball carrying. Yes, Burgess is a monster, but I don't expect him to start - which makes all the sucking of breath really odd. Take away the name and story, and people are focusing all their attention on England's second choice centre. That's pretty weird, right? Meanwhile, back with actual rugby, if we're going to get the ball wide, we could really do with more playmakers in the backline. Slade's a fine one, but he's probably not about to start either. They'll make Uruguay wish they'd never been born, but elsewise they'll see more action with the tackle pads than anything else most like. The somewhat one-paced nature of our flankers is a bit of an issue for going wide as well. 

If England can defend stoutly and move the ball wide quickly off of the turnover, set piece, and quick ball provided by Vunipola and Haskell, we're in business. If a team manages to stop those guys and attack our crumbly looking lineout, we have issues. The issues multiply if recent poor discipline continues and renders our defence pointless. That is where we are with this squad. Another way of looking at it is this is our 6N squad only with our first choice locks, Morgan on the bench, Hartley out, and Barritt for Burrell. Most of that's improvement, with the locks and Barritt in particular helping defence and the omission of Hartley particularly helps discipline. That one's funny because its true.

So all in all, it's not too bad. I don't think we're doing the exact right thing, but we're doing something that could work and that's good enough. There comes a time when one must put aside critical thought and misgivings and rally firmly to the flag, such as charging out of a trench or voting for a politician. I might have not posted on this blog for most of a year due to not having anything nice to say about Lancaster, but he's the man, this is his squad and its well capable of making us all very happy. By beating Wales and Australia. If that's not joy for an Englishman, I don't know what is. It might even win the World Cup, although I think we'll need a few breakout performances for that.

However, since I can't resist scratching away at scabs, here's a quick list of what's currently rolling by on the conveyor belt next to the microwave as we see what we could have had...

Forwards:
Cooper-Woolley, Corbisiero, Mullan, Thomas, Waller
Cowan-Dickie, Hartley, Taylor
Attwood, Itoje, Kitchener, Slater
Armitage, Beaumont, Croft, Easter, Kvesic

Backs:
Chudley, Dickson, Simpson
Burns, Cipriani, Flood
Daly, Hill, Tuilagi
Foden, Rokoduguni, Tait, Wade, Yarde

There's a fair few players there I wish that, on peak form and available, had been involved to be honest, and that's without including Delon the Felon and Chris Pennell. Quite what Alex Goode is doing in a list of the best five English full-backs would confound me, nevermind his presence in that squad. A fit Corbisiero was one of our best bets for a World Class player, along with Tuilagi and Croft (I'll fight anyone who says otherwise). 

I won't miss Hartley, who wasn't even throwing that well in the 6N, but apparently everyone else missed that and thinks they will. Whatever - although I would point out that only missing the Fiji game was hardly the end of the world for selection purposes. Quite what Lancaster was thinking I don't know, as maybe it was just irritation masked as selection. It's still pretty weird to think we actually cited a first choice international for such a petty and unreported incident, when you consider the ARU delaying a citing committee so that Michael Hooper could be picked to play for Manly and serve that game as a suspension instead. Suspending Tuilagi for assaulting police officers probably is fair though although I wonder if everyone else would have; it's a shame it's not thirty years ago, when the only punishment he'd have received would have been a beasting from the Kangaroo court then being made social secretary on the next tour.

Elsewhere in that squad are our only two grunt locks of note, our only physical wingers of note, our best utility backs outside 10, and our only out and out continuity opensides. I'm not sure whether to blame Armitage for staying in France or Lancaster for not levering him out - in any case, we knew he wasn't being selected and we knew why, but I'd have loved to have known how good he could have been for us. In fact, there's quite a lot of players I'd  have loved to have involved. Most of those choices were made long ago though so it might be time to jump on the team and come in for the big win, Full Metal Jacket style. We're gonna win the World Cup and Haskell's gonna make Robshaw kill a wounded sniper.

So, come on England. Yeah. Enthusiasm.

Ok, now I'm a bit more excited.

Countdown: Day Nine

Last night, England were the equivalent of a man who sits next to you on a night bus and promptly passes out and defecates in the smelliest, runniest possible fashion. There were plenty of other seats available, but no, England sat next to you and penned you in next to their effluent stained semi corpse. On balance, England really were that awful.

There are two ways of viewing such an abysmal display.

The first is that England were genuinely trying as hard as they could and that this might just be as good as they can play right now.

The second is that they were a little slack and complacent due to it being a pre-season friendly and that England can play a lot better than that.

The first is very worrying, the second is just irritating. We won't know until we see them play again, but I've seen a lot more teams look a bit lacking in pre-season than I have simply forget how to play rugby overnight. So I'm not worried. This could be wrong, because it can happen; Ireland's 2007 world cup showed that (and there's some parallels to be drawn in the build up). But the second seems more likely. So enough of that and onto something more interesting, namely Danny Cipriani and all he represents.

I thought Cipriani was comfortably England's best player on the pitch yesterday. That smells of damning with faint praise, so I'll rephrase - he was really good. He ran effectively, he created for others and he made good decisions. England looked twice as dangerous with him on the pitch. In terms of attack, Cipriani did everything he could to get into that squad. Whether he has, I don't know, and given the complexities, I'm fairly relaxed either way. Sometimes good players don't make it.

What I'm not relaxed about though is the prospect that there'll be virtually no players like Cipriani - that is to say, playmakers outside 10. At the moment, England are looking at four such - Cipriani, Slade, Twelvetrees and Goode - and I wouldn't be surprised to see only Goode get the nod. Which given that Goode's playmaking abilities have always existed more in theory than in practice for England, could mean no second playmaker at all.

That's beginning to look like a mistake. Last week, we looked dangerous with three guys capable of playing fly-half. This week, we only started making inroads once we had three guys capable of playing fly-half on the pitch. That's hardly conclusive evidence to say the least but it is a solid option for us. Consider too that both of our first choice fly-halves like having a second playmaker and play with one for their clubs. Farrell has Goode to work with at Saracens, Ford works very much in tandem with Eastmond. Both are young men, the sort of player who'd benefit from having a guy to share the burden. Farrell is still not the most fluent playmaker in the world and has played his best rugby for England with Twelvetrees at twelve. As for Ford, he may be as natural a playmaker as you'll see, but he's at his best running at the line and breaking himself or picking a short pass. At Bath, he relies on Eastmond to call the wide opportunities and release the strike runners, as first and best explained to me here. For England, he's been something of a one man show. He's had a lot of success with it so far, but there will be bad days and good days. We saw a bad day yesterday; it was very nearly turned into a good day by Cipriani.

Hell, go back to 2003. Wilkinson, then a better and more experienced fly-half, needed Mike Catt to help him get England over the line. Yes, that was much for his boot as anything, but the crucial thing was he took the pressure off a little. Yesterday, Ford didn't deal well with the pressure. Farrell does have a good big match temperament, but I've seen him struggle in big games too. The second playmaker isn't just about scoring mad tries y'all. It's about making life easier for the main man as he controls the game. Ultimately, it's a necessary option. Even if we don't start with it, we want it on the bench. But we might be about to all but give that up.

Going back to Cipriani - he would be an excellent option there. He brings a lot of experience and maturity to the role these days and his broken play running means he'll demand more attention than the other options. All of the options have their strengths, but Cipriani might be the strongest.

In fact, I think Cipriani might be our strongest fly-half. Of course, we don't know. We haven't played him there enough to find out. However, if you believe like me that Farrell lacks the instinctive creative impulses and skills needed to be the very best, and are worrying about Ford's defence and big game freedom, then maybe England need a better fly-half. Cipriani has done very well for Sale this year, in a harder environment than either of his younger rivals. His defence is much improved, his instincts and skillset impeccable - and his experience possibly invaluable. Could he been our man? I would like him to get the chance this World Cup, albeit in a impact sub role. I won't cry if he doesn't get it, but it's what I'd do. Cipriani for England.

Anyway - a quick look at the others. Attwood looked good, but he always looks good as an impact sub and disappoints as a starter. Might have definitely grabbed his slot from Kruis. Easter will be useful if Morgan doesn't make it. Jack Nowell continues to look a proper player. Haskell was our standout starting forward, which is a weird place. Discipline was awful, per usual.

Finally, the lineout. I'm sick of talking about the lineout. I'm sick of watching England waste possession.

Mostly though, i'm sick of watching people blame the hookers. Over the last seven games, it's looked bad. There's been five hookers involved. Five. If five guys use a system and all get bad results, why blame the man and ignore the system? There's been a lot of pundits sucking the air in between their teeth and going "Nah darling, that Tom Youngs' throwing can't be repaired, totally blown" and conveniently ignoring Youngs being the most accurate thrower in the AP last season. So, dear world, please stop blaming the hooker for everything and saying Dylan Hartley is the solution, despite last Six Nations, you dumb fucks. 

Countdown: Day Eight

I could do people a big long preview of Le Crunch part 2, but I figure there's not a lot of point. It's a pre-season friendly between two teams who play each other a lot, and with both teams at close to full strength, everyone knows what to expect. I'm sure there'll be something interesting to talk about after the match but I don't really know what it is right now. If I did, I'd probably be too busy fleecing bookies. So stuff previews. I'm pretty sure you're not mean to open articles with negative rambles about what you're not going to talk about, but there we go. Maybe it's some avant-garde bullshit.

What I am going to talk about are the players to whom today really matters. Some of them are pretty secure and just there for the run out. Dan Cole could probably concede a penalty at every scrum and still start in the World Cup. But today, some of them will fight for their dreams - and some of them will see their dreams die. DRAMA.

Jamie George

Jamie George is not fighting for his dream of going to the World Cup and that's pretty much been the case ever since Luke Cowan-Dickie picked a really bad game to get his throwing wrong. George will have to be actively trying to make a mess of it to miss the squad now. His dream will be to challenge Rob Webber and get a place in the match day 23 and right now, that seems pretty feasible. Going by selection, Webber seems to be a player than the management like but don't love. The Bath hooker probably has the edge at the moment thanks to experience, but a big game from the bench could change that.

Of course, the real prize here for George isn't just the World Cup, it's about nailing down a long term place while the older competition falters and before his younger rivals show up. Webber might not get back the Bath starting spot he lost to Ross Batty at the end of last season, which would really crimp his style. Meanwhile, Dylan Hartley must surely be beginning to try Lancaster's patience. I'm not predicting it to definitely happen, but it wouldn't be a surprise if neither man was involved come next autumn. There's a fair crop of young hookers waiting to exploit that - Sale's Tommy Taylor and Hartley's understudy Haywood both spring to mind - but George has first go and has earned it. His throwing has been accurate, his work rate very high and his carrying game strong. It's within his potential to finish this World Cup as a rival to Youngs - but only if he gets it right today.

Joe Launchbury

Ok, I might be stretching this one a little, but I really like talking about Joe Launchbury so whatever. In any case, everyone's favourite mutant thirteen year old has been out of contention for a bit, and therefore he does have something to prove. Just that in his case, all he has to do is to show he's still got it and we can all be happy that the closest thing England have to an openside in the squad is back.

In fact, not only will he be back, but to judge from the RFU's stats, he and a little extra will be back. He's now allegedly just over 18 and a half stone and if he's retained his pace, he should be a very unpleasant person to run into. It might also bring an improvement in Launchbury's tight play, which maybe hasn't been his strong suit. If these things have happened, then I might finally put him in the same bracket as Retallick and Etzebeth.

James Haskell

Also not at risk of missing out barring a horror show, this is all about Haskell nailing down the 6 jersey. So far, he's never worn it in a serious game when Wood has been available and Lancaster head honcho. His presence today suggests this may have changed but it's probably best not to assume, particularly with Lancaster constantly talking about starting the flowerpot men. So a big performance is needed today - but really, what I'd really like to see from Haskell, is that string of big performances he's been threatening his whole career. 

Danny Cipriani

Very much at risk. That he's England's third fly-half is currently beyond doubt but it's clear that the management are happy to do without their third choice if they can get more strength in the squad from somebody else who can fill in there if needed. Say, Henry Slade or Alex Goode, both of whom had good games last time out. When CIpriani turned down Toulon, with their pots of gold and cabinets of silver, this probably wasn't what he had in mind. But he is here now.

Maybe this second chance points to the England management wanting to take him. To my mind, it'll be instructive to see where they put him on, and I think full-back would actually be better news for Cipriani. While there's no doubt he's stronger at fly-half, no one cares. The question is whether he's strong enough at full-back to cover both. If he can shine there, he's got a good chance of going - and why not? He's quicker and more elusive than Goode and just as good a playmaker. The question lies in his defensive duties, particularly against the kicking game, and I suspect that's what Lancaster will be judging. If he does goes well, Cipriani might be well advised to remember just how old most of England's full-backs are; it's probably going to be the easiest route into the team over the next four years.

Tweedletrees and Tweedlethump

Neither Burrell nor Twelvetrees will have enjoyed watching Burgess and Slade last week with a whole heart. However, that's now gone, and so too are our promising centres; it's up to the old guard in their chance to redeem themselves. Which seems odd; both Burgess and Slade demand further investigation in my eyes. Meanwhile, Burrell's been showing off poor ball protection and poorer tackling for England, while Twelvetrees is a law unto god alone.

Still, here they are and truth told, I'm not quite sure what Lancaster's looking for. I rate both guys at their best, but the likelihood of getting their best seems too low, or even just an above average international game, and I'd have dumped them by now. However, I do think he sees this as a play-off for one spot and given that Lancaster is supposedly looking for four centres and has given Cipriani another go, I'm not sure this bodes too well for Henry Slade. I'll burn that bridge when I get to it, but I'm increasingly unimpressed with such a notion.

Jonny May

Finally, Jonny May. Now, Jonny isn't even remotely fighting for his space in the squad, not with three wingers kept. Short of being unveiled as people traffickers, all three guys are in. The argument's about who starts the big games and its now up to Jonny to seal the deal. It doesn't even have to be a big game from him, although you'd get excited about his form if he did.

It just needs to be solid. Everyone knows that he's deadly coming round into the 13 channel, that he's got incredible feet at more or less full tilt and his full tilt is elite by rugby standards. I'd like to think appreciation for his kickchasing (for which he's peerless in this England squad) and use of the touchline as a defender will grow. May didn't lose his place in the England team because of those things though. He lost it because he was making mistakes when the game contracted. Given that England have gone from three playmakers to one outside scrum-half, the space May will get today will probably contract. If May can't deal with that, his career as an international wing will always be precarious.


Anyway, I lied. Most of these people aren't playing for their spot in the squad, just jockeying over position within. Still, what's informative writing without DRAMA? That's what the Mail tells me. Maybe next week I'll blame it all on immigrants and women and my infection by the Mail will be complete.

Until then.

Countdown: Day Two

With the first of England's warm-up friendlies out of the way, the World Cup now seems truly incipient. We're no longer talking endlessly about the theoretical, we now actually know what England's players look like following the much vaunted beasting in Colorado.

So far, it seems a little mixed.

If I'd written a preview for this game, it would have consisted mainly of mild apathy about the whole affair save for the front row and centres. The front row I liked because, while potentially shaky at the set-piece, it looked on paper like the best carrying front row England's put together for some time, with another decent unit on the bench. Most people seem to forget just how good having Woodman, Thompson and Vickery was back in 2003, but the value of having a front row that really goes through work in the loose is immense. 

I'd say we saw a little of that. Both Webber and Vunipola put in good carrying shifts and Brookes' nine tackles before his injury is matched only by Parling in terms of tackles per minutes. But it wasn't match changing, not in the same way that our set-piece wobbles were, or our problems at the breakdown. The scrum, I would suggest, is just about in credit. The French are arguably the hardest opponents they will face for the rest of the year and they won some to go with their losses on the day. The lineout is a different kettle of fish and, given Hartley's travails in the spring, it's enough to have me mildly worried. It's easy to point at the hooker and scream insults about his ancestry, but it's up to the rest of the forwards to give him confidence and make it easy for him by getting their jobs spot on. That doesn't seem to be happening and asking Cowan-Dickie to go for the tail after a dodgy throw on a five-metre lineout is just not smart. It's as sympathetic as giving a tramp monopoly money. Here's hoping the England lineout is working hard, as Tom Youngs isn't exactly safe from bad throwing himself (even if he did have the highest lineout completion stat in the AP this year).

However, it's at the breakdown and collision that England's forwards really looked dubious. The collision area can be brushed aside a little as we know they'll improve but the breakdown has been a source of continuing angst for England fans for some time. England routinely struggle to get the best out of their own ball with the last Ireland game being a particularly sore reminder if for some reason you recently watched all of it with a definite emphasis on the rucks. Yes, I am that sad.

In the backs, things went better, but then arguably the backs were last challenged. Bar a few early sorties the French never really carved out space to attack out wide (despite twenty minutes of sin-bins) or exploited the slow ball to go hunting half-backs. It was fantastic to see England carve out and take opportunities out wide with the sort of clinical edge that comes and goes with England teams, but it's wait and see how it goes on bigger occasions before getting too jubilant.

The centres, however, might be getting me a little over-eager for the future. Henry Slade has been a star in the making for the last few years and I heard a lot of people grumbling about his absence from the Six Nations squad. He has excellent hands and vision and combines it with very sound defence - a possibly unique combination in English rugby today - and Watson's first try was a perfect example. It's a little risky to take him along without having exposing him to a real test match but even if he does miss out, he'll be pressing hard for the next Six Nations.

As for Burgess - it remains to be seen where his long term position for England will be but it seems increasingly like he will have one. I've seen a lot of predictions that he'd cut and run and all that but the more one hears from him and of him, the more that seems unlikely. He comes across as very dedicated and very honest; I can't see him code hopping like Sonny Bill Williams. The dedication also comes through in how quickly he's learning. I for one never thought he has a realistic hope of making this World Cup but based on that performance, Lancaster would be foolish to leave him behind. The big question for me was whether his defensive alignment would be ok - twelve tackles with no misses suggests it was. He also surprised me with how willing he was to pass. It would be very easy for him to decide he's the biggest back on the pitch and he's taking the ball and going straight (coughManuTuilagicough) but in the event he was pretty sensible and accurate about looking for opportunities to work it to men in space.

Long term, I still think he might be better at blindside. It gives him a bigger scope to be involved in the game and makes it harder for the opposition to line him up. It certainly seems that Bath coach Mike Ford feels that way, although he may change his mind if Eastmond's rumoured move back to League occurs. He might have also changed his mind based on that game; crash centres who can move the ball aren't that common. In any case, that's the future. Can he displace Barritt now? I'm no fan of Barritt, but I'm not sure of that one. It would give England's world cup chances a real boost and that's why it looks like centre might be Burgess' position for England after all. We might be struggling a little at blindside, but nowhere near as much as at centre.

In any case, it's all slightly academic until we see the rest of the squad perform.