There is no doubt in my mind how difficult choosing a Rugby World Cup squad must be. And of course, this is Stuart Lancaster’s prerogative. Whatever the reasons, whatever the parameters, the squad selection is down to him.
There is a fair amount of disquiet about Lancaster’s 31-man World Cup Squad. Lots of people have opinions on Burrell, Cipriani, even Nick Easter’s exclusion. And opinions, if informed, are fine when put forward in a rational way. Lancaster will tell you there isn’t just one way to win a game of rugby.
Confusion
I think what has confused people, and provided a platform for all this conjecture, is that England seem to be picking their players in different ways. Lancaster seems to have contradicted himself. He has muddied the waters and in doing so made people anxious about the process. Previously, the idea of ‘shirt ownership’ has been a big part of his rhetoric. Here he is talking about George Ford and Owen Farrell’s battle for the fly half spot at the beginning of August.
“George was exceptional for us during the Six Nations and for Bath beyond that, so Owen’s going to have to go over and beyond that to get the shirt back off him.”
As fans, we like this idea. It’s transparent and allows people to know where they are. Here is Lancaster talking about Chris Robshaw’s captaincy back in 2013.
“That is why I always wait until I meet the players,” he said. “To allow, one, those who are in that position to compete for that shirt and, two, the player who has got the shirt and captaincy to justify his place in the team.”
And here he is again, just this week, talking about Ben Youngs: “Ben’s got the shirt at the moment,” said Lancaster. “Danny Care has come on and done well but Richard Wigglesworth needs another opportunity in the squad in the Ireland game.”
Unity
Cipriani has been a casualty of this process. Even though he has played exceptionally well as a No.10 for Sale Sharks, he hasn’t been able to take up that position on the field for England. He’s been seen as cover at best. Playing for his country in his favoured position was a safe deposit box to which he didn’t have the key. In accepting the decision of a World Cup squad without him, Cipriani graciously alluded to the fact that the team had been building for a long time, and breaking into it was always going to be tricky.
All of this sounds principled. Lancaster has seemed just that; he’s taken a tough stance on misdemeanours (Manu Tuilagi and Dylan Hartley) and kept his word on playing your club rugby in this country, despite eye catching performances from those who don’t (Steffon Armitage and Nick Abendanon). The problem then comes when including someone like Sam Burgess (or indeed Brad Barritt) over Luther Burrell.
Barritt, Burgess and Burrell
Luther Burrell ‘had the shirt’. In England’s Six Nations campaign he played 387 minutes out of a possible 400. The two warm up games against the French seem to have changed all that for the former Leeds man. Burgess smashed his way into the reckoning in the first and a poor team display in the second left Luther looking down the barrel.
I wonder what would have happened had Barritt been fit to face the French? A tight calf muscle removed him from consideration but, much as I appreciate Brad’s qualities, I’m unconvinced he could have changed much in Paris. A prime example of when not playing can really work for you. Burrell must wish he hadn’t.
Barritt hasn’t played international rugby since the Autumn internationals in 2014. Yes, he tackled most of Australia with his face back in November, but there is a concerning lack of international experience this calendar year. The South African born Saracen has played just 14 minutes of rugby (v NZ in Dec 2012) with favoured outside centre Jonathan Joseph, and yet he and Burgess, whose centre credentials are well documented, have both leapfrogged the unfortunate Burrell. None of which appears to tally in with the previous ‘owning the shirt’ strap line.
Onions
Somewhat confusing you’ll agree, but all academic for now. Lancaster has picked his onions and England fans must get behind his choices. England’s group at the World Cup is difficult. Not just in calibre of opposition, but also in the order in which they play games.
Opening up against Fiji is tough. An incredibly physical South Sea Island team, they will also have enough guile to thoroughly test the defence structures of a midfield still getting know each other. Early damage could proved irreparable. They then play Wales the following weekend and Australia on the third Saturday. We will know then whether Lancaster has chosen well.
This weekend sees England’s final warm up game against a well drilled Ireland side and it will have us glued to our screens. From an England fan’s point of view, let’s just hope nothing comes unstuck.
By Sam Roberts (@samrobertsrugby)
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
As you know by now, we are hilarious, and you should be following us on Facebook and Twitter. 
I’m not really sure it is all that confusing. When Lancaster has spoken previously of owning the shirt, it has all been off the back of impressive performances. Youngs and Ford, in the examples you used, had previously played extremely well for England and therefore do “own” the shirt.
Nothing from Burrell was ever beyond adequate for an international centre, and therefore I don’t think he could ever have been classed as owning the shirt.
He’s a good player, but incomparable to the way others have owned other shirts around the pitch.
Agreed Jacob, there is to me a difference between “owning” the shirt as in doing so well that you would take it straight back after missing a couple through injury as opposed to merely “wearing” the shirt because you are relatively better than the other available options.
I have no idea whether SL has used any of the above rhetoric with respect to any one of Barritt, Burrell or Burgess, but it does raise the question that whether any of them has ever really “owned” the shirt in that particular way?
Completely agree. The difference between “owning” and shirt and “wearing” a shirt can been seen by Ford and Burrell.
Unfortunately for England, I think you’re right. No one under SL (or probably since Catt/Greenwood era), has even “owned” the 12 shirt.
SL has shown that in picking Burgess. He has the skills to become a properly internationally class 12 in the future, so he is risking it on him now. Barritt is the extremely reliable stop gap.
Surely “Owning the shirt” is not a literal “right” but rather a term that reflects the form of any player.
If one gets the opportunity to wear the shirt, and performs well then he “owns” it in the sense that he is proved to be the best in that position.
Just to put Englands selections in some perspective, the names of Trinh-Duc, Dusutoir, Horwill, White, Jayne, Dagg, Trimble, McFadden, Hibbard, Anscombe, Phillips, Jones, Cowan, Hamilton and Barclay, suggest (whatever one thinks of these players and their form) that England are not alone in attracting some criticism.
At least England have 31 players that are already qualified to play for them.
“Luther Burrell ‘had the shirt’. In England’s Six Nations campaign he played 387 minutes out of a possible 400″
And was anonymous to awful, missing a third of his tackles. If anything SL was too loyal, when perhaps blooding Slade even if from the bench (instead of 12t) might have been a better idea.
Burgess is a wild card pick. Why not? 12t and Burrell had plenty if chances, SL should have binned them after the 6n and given SB and HS all 3 warm ups IMO.