Stuart Lancaster yesterday revealed his 33-man EPS squad for the upcoming November Internationals at the QBE headquarters in London. Here is a selection of quotes on his thoughts on the selection decisions made by him and his coaching team.
On why, exactly, Cipriani has been left out, and what the England coaches look for in a fly-half:
“To be the best, it is not about the flash stuff. It is actually about skill execution and everything being done at a high level. If we take Jonny Wilkinson as the benchmark, he didn’t get everything right all the time and it wasn’t always flash, but he was incredibly consistent in everything he did. It’s about backing up one standout game with another, not a standout game followed by a 7/10 performance. It needs to be 9/10.”
“Game management is one of the key things we look for in our fly-halves. An accurate kicking game, goal-kicking … Stephen Myler probably tops those stats. Taking the ball to the line and making the right decision, you’re looking at George Ford at being the best at that.
“Everything is important. Consistency of skill execution, taking the ball to the line, goal-kicking, finding touch. Everything becomes part of your picture as a coach. Our players have to be very good at everything.”
On whether the Myler/Cipriani selection would have gone the other way had they been playing behind each other’s packs:
“No, I don’t think so. We don’t judge any player on the win/loss ratio of the team or whether they’re getting front foot or back foot ball. We select the side in two ways: on objective data – effectiveness at the breakdown, skill execution, tackles made, clearout effectiveness – all those things are objectively measured.
“But then we have a subjective analysis that we do every week – the four of us [Lancaster, Farrell Snr, Catt and Rowntree] have criteria for every position, and we measure, score and mark every player. So it doesn’t matter if you’re playing in a team that’s first or eighth in the table.
“What Stephen has shown is, whether he’s on the front or back foot, a very consistent level of application across the board. He was excellent at the end of last season, and if Northampton hadn’t have been in that final, he’d have started that first test [in NZ].”
On playing George Ford at 10, and Owen Farrell at 12:
“It’s something we’ve discussed, and it’s something we did in the Italy game [in this year’s 6 Nations]. It’s a combination that operated well at U-18s level, but primarily Owen sees himself as a 10, and so does George [Ford] and so does Steve [Myler] so that’s the way we’ll start, but it’s something we’ll consider, definitely.”
On bringing six or seven other players into the squad this weekend:
“We see Henry Slade as a guy we’d like to bring in at the weekend. Kyle’s got that bit of a knock on his rib, so it’s a fortunate opportunity to bring Henry in, who we’d like to see anyway. There’s a big game Sunday – Wasps play Harlequins, and we’re training Monday and Tuesday, so the Wasps and Harlequins players will struggle. They definitely won’t train Monday. Haskell and Robshaw will be going toe to toe, so Matt Kvesic we’d want in the camp.
“Mike Brown and Marland Yarde will have played, so Anthony Watson would be another one who could come in. Danny Care’s playing as well, so Richard Wigglesworth would also be a good option.”
Video credit: SportsBeat
On selection for the test against the All Blacks:
“We’ve never been afraid to put players in for their first cap, whatever the situation. Equally, we’ve got to get the balance right when we’re playing the All Blacks, who have had a very consistent run of games. The cohesion will be important for us, and the experience. Experience does count, as well as form and fitness.”
On having a playmaking inside centre:
“Brad [Barritt] can definitely do that – he’s worked hard on that, and he’s the best defensive centre we have. Billy Twelvetrees and Luther Burrell worked well for us in the Six Nations. Kyle Eastmond – the way he’s developed on the back of the New Zealand tour, and the way he’s bounced back from the third test has been exceptional. He’s been the best attacking inside centre this season.”
On Chris Ashton’s exclusion, and whether it’s a long way back for him:
“No, it’s not a long way back from him at all, and neither for Christian Wade, Dave Strettle or Anthony Watson, who were probably the other four that we really had a good debate about. We want to give a bit more time to Jack [Nowell] and Jonny May.
“It’s about balance, and when you lose Manu [Tuilagi], you think ‘what do we need? Right, we need some punch’ and Marland and Roko seem to be the guys that can do that. Chris has got the same message as Danny [Cipriani] and Freddie [Burns] – that it’s consistency.
“What we need in our players is that they are very good at everything, and then have two standout qualities. It could be a Christian Wade pace, a Watson step, a Roko power through the line, Nowell’s ability to get through first defender, or Jonny May’s out-and-out gas.
“It’s fine having a point of difference, but the other bit of the jigsaw is the ability to be good at everything else. Ruck effectiveness, high ball receipt, defensive alignment, kicking game – everything. That’s the message they get.”
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 think claiming Cipriani is inconsistent and implying that he’s about the flash stuff is very unfair. Sale are inconsistent as a team, but that’s more down to the pack and the opposition they come up against.
I’m not sure he’s saying that Cipriani is solely about the flash stuff, but more that Myler is better at the other bits and pieces and is generally more consistent. It doesn’t mean Cipriani can’t do that too, just that he’s not as good at it, and his ‘flash stuff’ isn’t quite enough to compensate for that.
Unfortunately for Cipriani, he does have a history of inconsistency and poor execution, at international level, that will always count against him. I’m not for a second suggesting that players should be judged solely on their past, but, let’s be honest, if you’re England coach you’re gonna want to know for certain that your flyhalf is as mentally strong as possible, and, unfortunately for Cipriani, we know that this is not the case.
The truth is that ,despite the bizarre media clamor for his selection, Cipriani hasn’t been THAT great. Yes, he’s much better than he has been in years, and, yes, he’s playing well, but he’s still, at best, England’s 4th best flyhalf, (IMHO!)
I’m hoping the “flash stuff” isn’t defined as “running with the ball”, “creating a try scoring opportunity” or “scoring a try”
Against the best teams we have to be looking to score 25 plus points a game and give the defence a realistic chance of holding them to less than that.
We did play better in the 6N and for 2/3rds of the summer tour where we scored many more backs tries than the previous year, but the opportunities we didn’t take (against Scotland and Ireland in particular) cost the title. I’m therefore really hoping to see continued progression of the attack in the AIs, but some concern it will be a “by numbers” approach.
“On having a playmaking inside centre:
“Brad [Barritt] can definitely do that”
Taxi for Mr Lancaster!
You can (try to) justify Barritt’s ocntinued selection on many fronts, but playmaking is not one of them. If he is picked, Roko and Yarde will spend most of the game in rucks as BB takes the ball into contact for the nth time!
Not sure I understand all the negativity about Barritt. He is a real warrior and it is not as if Saracens wings never get the ball. Including Barritt only becomes a problem if there is no other distributed in the centres and given the squad, that shouldn’t be an issue.
Ironically, the best England back performance for a while (vs NZ 2012) came from having to “non-distributors” in the centres.
Most of the Sarries tries I see come from kick chases.
And also how long are people going to cling to that one off performance against NZ, ignoring the dire performances against AUS and SA in the previous weeks and the truly dire following 6n. Seriously the 2013 6n against Italy was a low point in my England supporting lifetime, and I’ve been through the Andy Robinson era.
I would say you need to watch more Sarries games. 4 tries against Clermont last week, only one came from a kick chase. Barritt is a great player, and hugely underestimated in terms of his skill with ball in hand. Also SL likes to talk about his leaders on the pitch, and Barritt is considered to be one of these. I’d rather have Barritt as a leader in the midfield than 12T.
Struggling to agree with either of you here. Saracens score a lot of tries that are not kick chases, harsh to suggest otherwise. But Barritt has very little to do with those tries. I like Barritt, good defensive player, good leader. BUT, is there any centre in world rugby that would worry about playing against him? Definitely not.
He is a good option when injuries take their toll, but only that.
I think they might worry about getting past his defence – but not the other way around
I’d rather he was an injury only option but I’m close to preferring him over 12Trees…
I was a huge 12Trees fan but I a must say I’m losing faith. He genuinely has the complete skill set, and I was sure that he’d come good. But he has just been too inconsistent for too long.
Eastmond should be first choice 12. If he is not fit, I’d rather see Ford come in and Farrell move to 12 before 12Trees or Barritt get the shirt.
Alright I was being slightly tongue in cheek. But come on does everyone have collective amnesia of the 2012/ 13 season. England’s attack was non existent and that’s when we had Manu in the centres (for the most part).
And why does it have to be Barritt of 12t? I don’t think 12t deserves his place. I’d rather we take a punt on Slade, but failing that, and if defence is the key criteria (which it seems to be), what about playing Burrell in his club position?
Agree with you about 2012/13 attack – it was very blunt. 12trees and Burrell looking 10 times better this 6 nations just because of the distribution.
Problem with Burrell is that I can’t picture him going well with Tuilagi. I just can not see that working.
Really rate Slade – but I’m cautious of throwing him in too early, particularly out of position.
As I said above. Eastmond if he is fit, otherwise Farrell with Ford in at 10. Without Tuilagi, I’d play Burrell at 13.
I’d quite like to see Burrell (or Tuilagi when fit) at 12 with someone like Slade outside him
I’ve always been a fan of the way the Kiwis do it, with the big fella who can off-load at 12 (Nonu) and the playmaker outside him at 13 (Smith)
The threat of the big runner at 12, focusing attention further infield, gives more space for the outside centre and the wings to operate in. If your OC, like Conrad Smith has great vision and passing skills, then there is more room for him to put the wings and fullback into space
To be honest I don’t think it makes any difference. Traditionally, Australia have worked the same way we have with a ball playing 12. Ireland and NZ tend to work the other way round, as do Wales.
Really though, it makes no difference. Tuilagi, whilst wearing the 13 shirt, often went through the 12 channel off of first phase ball to open space outwide. Really, it’s a trivial argument.
The important this is to have a centre that is more creative and a centre that can get you over the gainline.
(Not the same Henry who started this thread)
I am in two minds about the 12/13 playmaker- as you rightly say Jacob often they swap around so there isn’t as much of a difference as many people think what number is on their back, however really interesting article from Greenwood today (in the telegraph on why Toulon won’t win the champions cup)- talks a lot about why Wilkinson valued Catt as the 2nd playmaker so much at 12. I think there is a psychological component of having another playmaker standing next to you taking pressure and decision making off the shoulders of the 10, and there is enough of a difference between the two to add some value to playing a playmaker/bosher in one or the other. It would certainly give our backline a much better balance of attack and for me the most promising guy is Slade to fill that role. Has everything that 12T does bar the size, but seems a much ‘smarter’ footballer. 12T habit of trying a kick through when we have a brilliant attacking opportunity frustrates me beyond belief. However in the mean time would go for Eastmond on current squad and form.
Though being a member of the Daly fanclub personally I would go bosher at 12 (Manu) and playmaker at 13 (Daly) just to get him in the team. But thats just me. I do buy into what Lancaster and co are trying to go for!
Another Daly fan here . . . and a bit of a heretic! I would love to see Daly at fullback again. I think he would give us an extra dimension in attack, and would give us an alternative kicker to Ford if Lancaster took a more creative option at 10. Yeah, I know Brown had a cracking season, but making a successful team is all about using the players you have in the best possible way.
PS I would also be happy to see Barritt at inside centre if Ford was no.10 – does that make me a double heretic?
3 minutes to go in a tight game. Penalty kick to edge in front. Who would you have on the field. Myler or Cips? I think that probably explains SLs logic.
Not really convinced by that. Cips goal kicking record is unbelievably good, and his (rather-large) ego puts aside any doubts about his nerve.
It is Mylers game management and kicking out of hand that has him way above Cips. Myler is brilliant at making sure Saints play their rugby in the right areas of the park.
I’ve never had an issue with Cips place kicking. Myler has form for missing last minute kicks if anything. Didn’t Cips absolutely nail a difficult kick within minutes of cming on in the 1st NZ test
Benjit, that is very true. I might add that last weeks Northampton game was a case in point. I am not entirely sure that that game was “managed” particularly well either.
This idea that its only England that put consistency and safety first, is somewhat untrue
All nations tend to favour consistency over those players who are incredibly talented but mecurial, who can win games from nowhere but can also lose them, especially when it comes to fly-half.
As an example, below is a list of players who, if it weren’t for their country valuing consistency foremost, would have greater numbers of caps
The ABs – Carlos Spencer
The Aussies – Quade Cooper
The French – Trinh-Duc
The Welsh – James Hook
I’m sure there are others
From an earlier vintage;
Stuart Barnes (though somewhat hard to believe today), Gregor Townsend, Paul Turner, Tony Ward.
Yup – although Townsend did at least end of with quite a few caps, despite being shunted all over the pitch
I think some people on this blog can be accused of wanting the ‘next big thing’ in this case Slade to be given a starting rollover other perfectly sound options. In the centres first it was 12t who we were all dying to see have a go, then it was the eastmond and now it’s slade.
As the country with the largest playing base I think we suffer from a scattergun policy of capping lots of players of similar ability, which means we have lots of players with 10-30caps, not enough for the magic 600 number of whatever it is to win the world cup. No way would North, cuthbert or Jonathan Davies have been the caps and the time they had of they were English. We need to stick to what we have and consolidate. If Lancaster thinks he can make 12t our will greenwood then il trust him.
Oh no doubt we are guilty of that (myself included)- just like we also have painfully short memories- the cries last year of ‘get Barritt out, he’s so dull, no creativity’, then this year ‘you know Barritt wasn’t that bad, wouldn’t mind seeing him in the team again, we played some good rugby with him’.
However I think it is more a lack of patience than anything- we aren’t calling for change in the pack- we are only getting frustrated with our midfield as it has yet to really perform- players are coming in having 6 games and being ‘ok’. Yes we wanted 12T in the team, but he has been nothing but average, occasionally frustratingly poor (2nd NZ test). I think it is fine to expect more than that from the English back line. If that means we have to look to the new (and in Slade’s case, form) midfielders in the premiership, so be it.
It is worth noting that the last two under 20s teams have won the world cup, so theoretically the players coming through should be bloody good and worth a look!
I think that is a bit unfair re 12t. He was lumbered with Tomkins last AIs, but was part of the most attacking team in this year’s 6n. He was not fit for the 2nd NZ test, and I blame SL for rushing back his “regulars” rather than sticking with those who had done so well in the 1st test.
I fear SL is going to make the same mistake with Farrell for the 1st AI. He looked a little undercooked vs Munster.
What concerns me is why do we all watch rugby, what are the most watched clips on you tube, what is the greatest try of all time from the Baba’s – the flash stuff.
I don’t want to watch great defenses, I want to watch flair players.
Of course winning is everything for the professional game, otherwise what’s the point, but if it means union going the way of league (especially in the ARL) and becoming a defence heavy game ( no disrespect to League as I am a big fan) then perhaps it won’t be the game I love to watch.
It should always be about having a go, not containing the opposition.
Given all the debate here just about 10/11/12 we are far from a settled team just a year out from rwc.Kirwan’s comment NZ being 5 years ahead in terms of a settled team seems about right.Is 2015 a stepping stone to 2019??
Whilst England’s unsettled backs situation is far from ideal, I think you can have “too settled” a side to the point that things become stale. The two most settled sides are Wales and NZ. Both very good sides. But are still on an upward curve or have they plateaued or are even in decline?
SL is paying for the mistakes in 2013 which was the last great opportunity to experiment. Instead he bet the farm on the core of his backs being Farrell, Barritt, Manu, Ashton, Brown and Goode, based on THAT match vs NZ. However the matches against France, Italy and Wales ( following similar abject attacking performances against Australia and South Africa the previous autumn) shattered that belief. We then had the summer disrupted by the Lions and then wasted the autumn with the failed Tomkins experiment.
I still say it’s not too late though.
My biggest concern is not the midfield, we have sufficient resources for SL to eventually settle from, but the front row options. If Dan Cole continues his injury run then we lack any quality in depth there and the same goes the other side. 2 injuries to the established order and we are dramatically reduced in quality and experience.
Struggle to agree with this, particularly at loose-head. Alex Waller is 5th choice – not too bad at all. Corbs, Vunipola and Marler are all established internationals who can do well against any pack. Matt Mullan is also a very strong alternative.
Tight-head is a different matter. With Wilson and Cole fit, we have two top class tight heads, but outside of that we have a problem. Brookes seems the best bet, with Henry Thomas failing to look good enough at scrum time to be an international tight head. That being said, not many international sides can reel off three or four top options at TH. Brookes was very good in NZ so I’m not worried there.
Fair enough, not bad players but they all lack experience and with the injury record this year of Cole and Corbs, this is worrying. Look at the squad for AI now, with Marler and Wilson carrying knocks, there is a lack of proven ability behind. I know its not there fault but I worry about who comes in.