With a little over a week until Stuart Lancaster has to finalise his 31 players for the Rugby World Cup, we’re giving you the chance to step into the head coach’s shoes and pick the England World Cup squad.
We’ve tweaked the usual selection poll format, however, by taking out the guys that are absolutely nailed on to be selected, through form, fitness or otherwise. So with that in mind, the following are considered on the plane bus already:
Brad Barritt, Mike Brown, Danny Care, Dan Cole, Owen Farrell, George Ford, Jonathan Joseph, Joe Launchbury, Courtney Lawes, Joe Marler, Jonny May, Jack Nowell, Chris Robshaw, Billy Vunipola, Anthony Watson, Richard Wigglesworth, Tom Wood, Ben Youngs, Tom Youngs
So, that’s 19 of the 31 already decided, which leaves 20 players to crowbar into 12 spaces. Who makes it, and who doesn’t? Pick your 12 from the options below:
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...There, this selection malarky isn’t so tough, is it? Justify your selections below and face the wrath of the rest of the rugby world – that’s the difficult part!
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
Fancy yourself as a bit of a prediction guru? Join our Rugby World Cup predictor league on SuperBru and prove it!
Don’t know if I’ve done something wrong but my selections have been made for me already!? I think this must be a glitch as 12T got 4 votes!
I wasn’t quite able to make the selection I wanted here… I’d like to see Easter go as my fourth lock, finding space for him and Morgan in the squad.
Props: Cole, Brookes, Marler, Vunipola, Corbs
Hookers: Youngs, George, Webber
Locks: Launchbury, Lawes, Parling, Easter
Flankers: Robshaw, Haskell, Wood
No.8: Vunipola, Morgan
Scrum half: Youngs, Care, Wrigglesworth
Fly Half: Ford, Farrell
Centres: JJ, Barritt, Burrell, Burgess
Wing: Nowell, Watson, May
Full back: Brown, Goode
Sorry just reloaded and it’s available to vote now
I think there will be a lot of disappointed fans/armchair selectors (myself included) when Slade doesn’t get picked. I just can’t see Lancaster doing it given that Barritt and Joseph are nailed on, he is in love with Burgess and unless Burrell has a shocker on Saturday, he won’t drop him and his (relative) experience – given that Burrell was the 12 for the six nations this year.
As for who is 13 cover if Joseph is injured, I’m not sure but I think we may see Burrell there, or possibly May/Nowell for a time on Saturday.
i was just thinking this myself. Essentially I decided that I would rather have a Barritt/Burrell midfield in a knock out WC game than play Slade.
Burgess I just think is a great player to have in the squad; and whilst I think Slade is currently a slightly better Union player, Burgess presence edges it for me.
When you factor in the fact that May and Nowell can cover 13, then I think we are more than covered. JJ will play every second of every (important) game is fit so not a worry really.
I would take Slade and Burgess, but I think he will go with Burrell and Burgess.
In terms of 13 cover, one should factor in the fact that Barritt has played there for England as well. in my most humble opinion 13 is the hardest position to defend on the pitch, so I think I would rather him at 13 than May.
I read Ben Kay recently said that having Leonard (who wasn’t as good as Rowntree at the time) and Farrell Sr in the 2003 and 2007 squads made a huge difference due to their presence, and contribution to the squad.
This is something that is impossible to measure from the outside, but lends itself enormously to the inclusion of Burgess.
Not surprised to hear Ben Kay saying say; it makes a huge difference and I’m sure Burgess will go for that reason. Lancaster wanted to prove he could cut it at 12 in the test arena; he has done that.
It comes down to Slade vs Burrell. As you mention, Barritt has played there too so I think that we are covered there. For me that is the closest decision in the squad. That and Easter/Attwood.
Jacob, i’d be surprised if that particular choice (Easter/Attwood) was a current choice with the coaching staff.
I reckon that Easter is there purely as cover for Morgan.
Attwood/Kruis is the choice I think. I would go for Attwood.
Interesting problem with Slade but given how poor Farrell has been I would take Slade in Farrell’s place
Interesting to see – when has Farrell been poor? MOTM display to win a Prem title in the final club game of the year. One test match since in which he got the back line firing extremely well. Before that he has injured…
Why do you say Farrell has been poor Colin? I don’t see that he has done anything particularly bad, seems to have been composed and solid in the games I’ve seen him since injury?
I disagree with the Slade vs Burrell argument – unless Burrell is outstanding against France of course! Just think the versatility and playmaking game he brings allows more scope for gameplan/injury changes without really losing anything except a relatively small amount of experience.
Do people really want Corbisiero over Brookes??
Corbisiero has been a shadow of his former fantastic self since he got injured and they changed the rules.
Brookes is growing in stature as a scrummager and is brilliant in the loose. He’s a great bench option
I agree, I’d pick Brookes over Corbs without a moments hesitation. I might even have Brookes above Wilson for the bench. Corbs has done nothing since coming back from injury, and I would be seriously concerned about him covering TH. On the other hand, I think Brookes could do a reasonable job at LH.
I know Corbs can play both sides of the scrum but I wasn’t are that Brookes can play LH? If you’re taking 5 props then I guess it makes sense for the 5th one to cover both sides of the scrum…
Or perhaps not? I presume if there’s an injury then another prop can be called up in to the squad anyway…..
And, what news on Brookes injury that he picked up last weekend?
I think the 5th prop will be expected to cover both sides. Replacements can be called up, but only if the player being replaced drops out of the squad for good. So if Marler/Cole gets a one/two week injury they wouldn’t want to cast him out and will need the 5th prop to cover on the bench.
I know that Brookes started at least one game at LH for Newcastle last year (home vs Northampton – from googling), with Scott Wilson at TH. No idea how he’d fair at international level though, but then nor do we know how Corbs would do at TH.
Brookes injury was bruising i think.. maybe it ruled him out of this weeks game as I would have expected to see him tested at LH from the bench, instead of Mako, who is nailed on for the squad.
Definitely agree with this. I’d actually have Brookes over Wilson. The fact that Corbs covers both sides more than anyone else can (and not his form), then edges him in over Wilson for me.
Wilson can probably cover both sides better than anyone else. I’m fairly sure he’s played their for England off the bench before, before 8 man benches.
I have a feeling that Cole has played both sides before as well? Anyway, Corbs is suffering with sciatic pain, so with that in mind it would be daft to take him as it means there is probably something wrong with his back.
Brookes played well last week, and it will be interesting to see how Cole and Wislon play this week. Brookes is a bit more like Mako, in that he is very mobile with good hands and can attack the gain line.
I haven’t seen Corbs play well for some time, and although he’s a good prop, he is also the most likely to get injured and have to be replaced.
Stu, I just think his kicking has been slightly below his normal excellent level & that compound his below par performance – some ineffective tackling, poor kicking from hand & not as good attacking compared to Ford or Slade. Solid I agree but more required from him to win his place. Slade’s ability to fill several positions seal it for me with his lack of experience worth the risk
I would have to agree with Stu here. Farrell is the most experienced fly half we have in the squad. So to drop him for a player with one cap who hasn’t even played at 10 in an international match would be crazy. Yes Ford is the better attacking option at 10, but if the game needs to be closed out, and the ball put in the right areas of the field to pin the opposition back, then Farrell is the 10 to bring on.
With this poll in mind I am going to pick my 23 for the Fiji game:
1. Marler, 2. T.Youngs, 3. Cole, 4. Lawes, 5. Launchbury, 6. Haskell, 7. Robshaw (C), 8. B.Vunipola, 9. B. Youngs, 10. Ford, 11. Nowell, 12. Burgess, 13. Joseph, 14. Watson, 15. Brown
16. George, 17. M. Vunipola, 18. Brookes, 19. Parling, 20. Morgan, 21. Wigglesworth, 22. Farrell, 23. Slade
Same team for me – but would have Slade starting at 12 (if we get a chance to see that before in a warm up) and Barritt on the bench.
Like that team a lot. Would probably go for the same other than bringing May into the bench for Slade. Reason bring, if a winger got injured I don’t want to see JJ shifted out.
Would also be tempted to play Barritt – Fiji have dangerous backs and he is a strong defensive organiser. But Burgess offers a threat that Barritt never could.
Fiji tend to play Nadolo at 12 – can you imagine him lining up opposite Burgess? You’d feel those collisions all the way back in the Pacific Islands.
I was torn between Burgess and Barritt, and also between Slade/May and Goode for the bench. I decided that Goode wouldn’t offer much from the bench against Fiji. We know JJ is competent on the wing, and we also know that Burgess and Sldae can play together. Watson or Nowell could switch to FB as well if necessary, so I went with Slade as he could also cover 10 if he had to.
Nice team – a very energetic replacement front row and overall, a bench that would have a significant impact (although I’d have loved to be able to choose Simpson over Wigglesworth)
I do hope Launchbury goes well this weekend
Simpson’s injury is a shame because I would definitely have him before Care at the moment.
Mostly agree, Dazza;but I really, REALLY wouldn’t pick big Sam against Fiji. Could be a nightmare, because the Fiji backs have such great feet AND PACE, and his relative inexperience could be massively exploited. (I speak as a Welsh fan, mind!) I think there’s a very strong case for Barritt here, so strong and reliable in defence.
Point taken, but I think the structure the England team play with will help. As long as we don’t get caught up trying to play the Fiji way Sam will be fine. I toyed with the idea of Barritt, but Sam adds something that Barritt can’t.
I’d hope too (without being arrogant) that the English pack would dominate and the dangerous Fijian backs wouldn’t see too much quick quality ball. I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t want to be taking slow ball with Burgess coming up fast.
It baffles me that Tom Wood is considered “safe”. I can’t remember the last time he played well for England. Its a shame because 2011 – 12 he was great, but since being shunted to 8 in 2013 6n, I can’t recall a truly outstanding performance, although I am getting on a bit, so this could be a senior moment!
I totally agree with you! Not since the MoM performance against NZ in 2012. He’s great in the lineout but not sure what else he really brings to an England back row at the moment? Not a great poacher (I’d say even below both Haskell and Robshaw, never mind Kvesic or Clarke), not a bulldozing carrier or a brutal tackler. Real ‘jack of all trades, master of none’ kind of guy. Why I really wish Itoje had emerged a year or two ago… Has everything Wood has but a bit more steel in his carrying and tackling.
I have been wondering if there is any value in a back row with Vunipola at 6 and Morgan at 8 (when all are both in form). Vunipola looked good for Sarries when they put him there to help his fitness and all round game. With Lawes and Launchbury as athletic 6 style locks, we wouldnt be lacking mobility (Morgan is pretty quick anyway), and it would seriously increase our carrying options. Could be useful if we were to drop a ball carrier in the backline and play Slade at 12 (*hint hint*)…
Guys, Woods real value is his work at the breakdown, protecting the England ball, with his clean outs, and attacking and slowing down the oppo ball. When in possession, he is always very, very quick to the second phase breakdown. This is why England put so much faith in him.
He is not a ball stealer, or ball carrier, but his work allows Robshaw to play 7, and No8 (Vunipola/Morgan) to carry a lot more.
That said, I think that Haskell is presently in better form.
Agree with you here. I don’t have any stats in front of me but Wood always seems to hit a lot of breakdowns.
His lack of carrying is what bothers me most; I don’t think he’s ever made more than a yard or two carrying in a test match before!
Haskell is by far the better option at the moment. If he doesn’t make the odd daft decision he could be a great player. Carries, hits hard, great at the breakdown and wins a lot of turnovers.
On the idea of Vunipola and Morgan in the same back row; not sure it’ll work. Neither of those players offer anything in the line out. Haskell and Robshaw, whilst not known for the line outs, are genuine options as jumpers.
On the subject of Haskell’s daft decisions, I think being the captain for Wasps has helped with that a lot last season. His temperament has changed, and I think he has become a better player for it.
Well apart from that trip in the France game…
I can’t be the only one who breathes a sigh of relief every time they read dan cole’s name haha
Woods always seems to be defended by SL due to his line out work rather than breakdown though, I do think there are options now in people like Itoje who can nullify that argument whilst adding more to the back row in terms of carrying ability. The worry is losing Wood removes a lot of experience and leadership from the group.
Good point Stu. Itoje was /is probably a victim of his inexperience at senior level and Bombers inherent conservatism.
Ewers should have been in the original party too. His omission was nothing sort of criminal.
The mix of props is surprisingly, a bit of a conundrum. Marler is a shoe in,dito Cole, after that the likely candidates are Mako,Wilson and a.n. other. A while ago Corbs would have been first name on the list but his wretched injury record has cast a shadow even though he shored up a creaking scrum last Saturday. Brookes didn’t quite convince in the scrum for so big a lad.
In the backs a lot hinges on Burrell’s performance on Saturday night. He was eclipsed by Joseph in the 6N and had a very quiet tournament compared to last year.
If he steps up then I think Slade will be let go and Slammin will get the nod.That being the case we will be short of a centre with the x factor and if JJ gets injured during the tournament we could be seriously Donald Ducked!
Attwood has been neutered by England.I feel for him because his main weapons are size and power. Either someone is telling him to play in a way that is alien to him or he just feels inhibited by the current regime. we need a big enforcer. CL is a tremendous all rounder,ditto launchbury but neither can bring the beef that big Dave carries. Kruis over Parling is a tough call too. Guile and experience versus work rate and enthusiasm. Kruis just shades it physically so it comes down to how Bomber sees the big picture .
The half backs are obvious really I think we all know who will be in and out. One of them has the surname Farrell,I’m not giving any other clues!
Roll on September.
I would rather see Brooke’s go than Corbs at the moment, he is just too injury prone to be trusted.
centres for me would be JJ, Barritt, Slade and Burgess. I agree we are overly reliant on JJ for creativity in centres without Slade.
Interesting point re Attwood, do you believe that SL concentration on aerobic fitness has diminished England’s ability to outmuscle teams in the contact area? I saw someone else write something similar recently after the France game.
That would have been me Stu. Yes I do think England’s regime has sacrificed a bit of physical power for aerobic fitness. I can sort of understand what Bomber is doing but you still need sheer heft and power in the modern game.
There was a lot of talk about how much weight certain players had lost which is fine if they have lost flab but replaced it with muscle bulk (as long as that doesn’t compromise mobility) and explosive power. I take the point too that England don’t have any 145kg forwards!
It’s a balancing act basically. I just wonder if the scales have been tipped too far in one direction. Pardon the pun!
Attwood should be up around the 19 stone mark. You can be that heavy and be dynamic if the training is right.
Interesting that no one is owning up to selecting Twelvetrees…hopefully those 9 votes didn’t include Lancaster, Farrell, Catt, and Rowntree!
I agree with you Teecee, aerobic fitness is important but needs to be balanced with the ability of a player to impact a gain line in terms of carrying and tackling. Don’t recall too many England players knocking people backwards like Burgess did last week…perhaps that’s why SL wants him in the squad?
It’s an interesting consideration if Attwood slump in form coincided with a new training focus from SL sacrificing what got him there in the first place.