Jump to content

Your England 24 man squad and starting 17


Recommended Posts

Just now, Jim Prendle said:

Whether we like it or not, we need someone to move the team around the pitch. Gale isn't that player, never has been, never will be. I understand Smith is not everyone's cup of tea, but he was superb in his last international match, and we need some experience in there. I am completely unconvinced by Gale.

I've gone into this earlier in the thread. If Hodgson gets back to form, then I don't care which one we pick. Is an in-form Hodgson better than an in-form Roby? In my opinion Hodgson doesn't even enter the argument.

It's time for Hall to move on. Plenty of other faster, more agile wingers knocking about, and they can all score tries.

I guess we will will just have to disagree about Sam and Bateman, and if you don't think Lockers is a great player, then I guess I don't really know what to say about that.

Widdop can move us around the pitch, Gale can being that attacking flair we need. When was Smiths last international match? How far can we go back, that argument seems a bit mental to me.

Aye lets not cover Hodgson v Roby again haha - we'll have to agree to disagree with this one.

Halls international record is amazing, I (and coaches seem to agree) we need bigger wingers at international level. The meters Hall/McGillvary make coming out of our own half are just as imporant as the tries (all wingers score)

Sam Burgess is not a prop - he should be at loose for me. And I really like Bateman but he's in a fight for that 2nd row spot for me. Whitehead obvious name missing out, id also throw Ward in the mix

Im not saying SoL isnt a great player, just he's not in great form. He was awful vs Leeds bar his one hit on Singleton (which he seemd to come off worse)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

With regards to Lockers, one bad game doesn't make him in bad form, just as one good game from Hodgson recently doesn't put him in good form.

Its not one with either though pal

SoL been labouring all year from what ive seen/read - though id admit I seem to be in the minority here

Hodgson (trying not to get into this too deely again) has turned it around last 2/3 games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the line up I would prefer to see assuming some level of form and fitness

1. Tomkins

2. McGilvary

3. Watkins

4. Percival

5. Hall

6. Widdop

7. Gale

8. T. Burgess

9. Hodgson

10. Graham

11. Currie

12. Whitehead

13. S. Burgess

 

14. G. Burgess

15. O'Loughlin

16. Williams

17. Hill

 

I know that the Burgess twins get a huge amount of stick on these boards but they make more metres per carry in the NRL than the leading props do in Super League and their work rate when on the pitch is excellent.  With a number of players in the pack who can play big minutes I would have them in for the 30/35 minutes of go forward they add when on the pitch.  With Graham and Hill as proven internationals this is a rotation of 5 big men (3* Burgess plus Graham and Hill).

The wingers are proven.  They can score and (critically) they work very hard bring the ball off their own line - such an important part of a wingers game these days.

I would go with Gale over Smith as Widdop will be the boss in this team and his kicking game in the NRL this year has been outstanding.

I would start O'Loughlin on the bench - he is not an 80-minute player these days and the added creativity he would add after the initial arm wrestle would be useful.  He is still a high quality impact player.

The above allows Sam Burgess to start at lock and then move into the front/back row when O'Loughlin comes on and play big minutes with a high work rate.

Currie plays left edge forward and Whitehead right edge which is where they play their club games.

Percival gets the nod at left centre as I want people playing in their natural position but if Gildart finishes the season well he can squeeze in. 

Williams gets a bench spot as cover in the halves and hooker.

Tomkins at full back simply because the modern game needs a ball handling threat at full back as this is where scoring plays are created and executed.  He gets the nod over Lomax as he is more elusive and while tough of Hardaker he does need to improve his creativity to complement his running threat to be considered as an international quality full back.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

This is the line up I would prefer to see assuming some level of form and fitness

1. Tomkins

2. McGilvary

3. Watkins

4. Percival

5. Hall

6. Widdop

7. Gale

8. T. Burgess

9. Hodgson

10. Graham

11. Currie

12. Whitehead

13. S. Burgess

 

14. G. Burgess

15. O'Loughlin

16. Williams

17. Hill

 

Not sold on Tom & George Bugress but bar that id say thats spot on

Id throw Taylor/Walmsley in for whichever Burgess Bro is weakest at the time

What happened with Adam Cuthertson playing for England? Worth a shot? One of best meter makers in SL and massive amount of offloads (102!!!)

SoL would also maybe make way for a true 2nd rower for me - Bateman or Ward currently

Bar that like the team and reasons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Moc said:

Not sold on Tom & George Bugress but bar that id say thats spot on

Id throw Taylor/Walmsley in for whichever Burgess Bro is weakest at the time

What happened with Adam Cuthertson playing for England? Worth a shot? One of best meter makers in SL and massive amount of offloads (102!!!)

SoL would also maybe make way for a true 2nd rower for me - Bateman or Ward currently

Bar that like the team and reasons

What we need in international packs is go forward.  Without getting into a debate on the merits of SL vs. NRL the stats show that the Burgess twins are more effective meter makers than both Taylor and Walmsley.  The only direct comparison we have for Tom Burgess and Scott Taylor is when they played together against Scotland in the four nations and Tom was massively more effective in that game.

On O'Loughlin.  I would have him in the team and the Sam Burgess vs. O'Loughlin debate is negated by starting Sam and then seeing some ball handling and creativity (as well as running and big hits) from O'Loughlin - probably in a couple of spells.

I had Ward in the 17 but swapped him out for Hill. I think you need two props on the bench and the versatility of Williams got him the nod.  I am a big fan of Ward though and I think he will become a better player than Bateman over the next year or two.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

What we need in international packs is go forward.  Without getting into a debate on the merits of SL vs. NRL the stats show that the Burgess twins are more effective meter makers than both Taylor and Walmsley.  The only direct comparison we have for Tom Burgess and Scott Taylor is when they played together against Scotland in the four nations and Tom was massively more effective in that game.

On O'Loughlin.  I would have him in the team and the Sam Burgess vs. O'Loughlin debate is negated by starting Sam and then seeing some ball handling and creativity (as well as running and big hits) from O'Loughlin - probably in a couple of spells.

I had Ward in the 17 but swapped him out for Hill. I think you need two props on the bench and the versatility of Williams got him the nod.  I am a big fan of Ward though and I think he will become a better player than Bateman over the next year or two.

 

I appreciate the argument has to be made that its tougher making yards in NRL - but still Walmsley blows them out of the water

Total Meters made

  1. Walmsley - 3286
  2. Cuthertson - 2841
  3. S.Burgess - 2802
  4. T.Burgess - 2070
  5. Hill - 2058
  6. Taylor - 2010
  7. Graham – 1973
  8. Chris Heighington - 1789
  9. G.Burgess - 1377

Id also make the argument minutes played needs to be considered - the two twins traditionally do much shorter stints - I cant find the actual stats for minutes played for SL, but im pretty confident in saying Hill/Walmsley/Cuthbo do way more

The Bros get gassed easily which im not a massive fan of at international level – id be happy to have one impact prop on the bench but depending on two throughout a game is a big risk in my opinion

Minutes Played

  • Graham - 839
  • S.Burgess - 1333
  • T.Burgess - 734
  • G.Burgess - 451

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Moc said:

 

I appreciate the argument has to be made that its tougher making yards in NRL - but still Walmsley blows them out of the water

Total Meters made

  1. Walmsley - 3286
  2. Cuthertson - 2841
  3. S.Burgess - 2802
  4. T.Burgess - 2070
  5. Hill - 2058
  6. Taylor - 2010
  7. Graham – 1973
  8. Chris Heighington - 1789
  9. G.Burgess - 1377

Id also make the argument minutes played needs to be considered - the two twins traditionally do much shorter stints - I cant find the actual stats for minutes played for SL, but im pretty confident in saying Hill/Walmsley/Cuthbo do way more

The Bros get gassed easily which im not a massive fan of at international level – id be happy to have one impact prop on the bench but depending on two throughout a game is a big risk in my opinion

Minutes Played

  • Graham - 839
  • S.Burgess - 1333
  • T.Burgess - 734
  • G.Burgess - 451

 

I think he means per carry Moc TBF the Burgess boys are very good at it. Walmsley is 7.9m per run - George Burgess is 10.8m, Tom is 9.8m and Sam is 8.8m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scubby said:

I think he means per carry Moc TBF the Burgess boys are very good at.

Yes, metres per carry.  They are well ahead of Walmsley and Taylor in Super League in this measure and they are well ahead of a lot of the leading props in the NRL.  I accept that two players with 30/35 game time is a luxury but with Graham, Hill and Sam Burgess able to play big minutes I would go for the impact they both have... Tom to start and George off the bench.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Scubby said:

I think he means per carry Moc TBF the Burgess boys are very good at.

Aye thats fair enough they are - though given the shorter minutes from them - id expect that to be the case

Walmsley stats are still worth a place for me

  • Start - Graham + Walmsley
  • Bench - Hill + Tom/George
  • Loose - Sam

(id even be tempted to play Cuthbo over Hill if he can play for England - but thats a whole over convo for a seperate day maybe)

@Dunbar

Capture.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dunbar @Scubby

Updated again to show tackles

To me, this shows Tom is the far better twin this year

George with 451minutes, 228 tackles youd expect his Yards per carry to be massive - id expect any of the props to do the same - so that really needs to be taken with a massive pinch of salt

Capture2.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moc said:

@Dunbar @Scubby

Updated again to show tackles

To me, this shows Tom is the far better twin this year

George with 451minutes, 228 tackles youd expect his Yards per carry to be massive - id expect any of the props to do the same - so that really needs to be taken with a massive pinch of salt

Capture2.PNG

I agree that Tom has been the better of the two this year which is why I would have him starting for England.

George does exactly what you would hope from an impact prop which is add a lot of momentum in two (shortish) spells.

If we forget the fact they are twins for a moment (not sure why they have to be considered as having the same attributes Just because they look the same!) I think they both add value to the England team.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

If we forget the fact they are twins for a moment (not sure why they have to be considered as having the same attributes Just because they look the same!) I think they both add value to the England team.

Problem is a few short sighted people can't. They are great assets to have in the squad. A few commentators are judging them by different standards because of their surname. Walmsley and Taylor have been great this year and deserve to be in contention. But let's not pretend that George, Tom and Sam in SL wouldn't be carving it up - because they would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Moc said:

Aye thats fair enough they are - though given the shorter minutes from them - id expect that to be the case

Walmsley stats are still worth a place for me

  • Start - Graham + Walmsley
  • Bench - Hill + Tom/George
  • Loose - Sam

(id even be tempted to play Cuthbo over Hill if he can play for England - but thats a whole over convo for a seperate day maybe)

@Dunbar

Capture.PNG

I wasn't convinced about the argument than fewer minutes on the pitch relates to more metres per carry... surely you are either physically capable of making big metres or not (i.e. George Burgess at 6'4" and 19 stone)

Anyway, I had a look at George Burgess's stats from the games he has played this year.

In the games where he played over 40 minutes he averaged 10.7 metres per carry

In the games where he played over 30 minutes but less than 40 he averaged 10.7 metres per carry

In the games where he played less than 30 minutes he averaged 10.9 metres per carry

Not enough in that to suggest that the minutes played effect his ball carrying impact.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I wasn't convinced about the argument than fewer minutes on the pitch relates to more metres per carry... surely you are either physically capable of making big metres or not (i.e. George Burgess at 6'4" and 19 stone)

Anyway, I had a look at George Burgess's stats from the games he has played this year.

In the games where he played over 40 minutes he averaged 10.7 metres per carry

In the games where he played over 30 minutes but less than 40 he averaged 10.7 metres per carry

In the games where he played less than 30 minutes he averaged 10.9 metres per carry

Not enough in that to suggest that the minutes played effect his ball carrying impact.

Surely you can understand if youre playing long minutes and making high number of tackles (not 130ish) you wont have the same impact - regardless of your size - very odd comment to make

This isnt rocket science

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Moc said:

Surely you can understand if youre playing long minutes and making high number of tackles (not 130ish) you wont have the same impact - regardless of your size - very odd comment to make

This isnt rocket science

Not at all.  While I accept that a player will fatigue during a game so do other players on the pitch as well and so the relative contribution of a player will not change.

Here is an example.  Jason Taumalolo is one of the best metre makers in the NRL and probably the most effective ball carrier in the competition.

In the games where he has played between 60 and 80 minutes he averages 11.2 metres per carry and yet in the games where he played between 40 and 60 minutes he averages 10.4.  If your theory stacked up then his effectiveness with the ball would reduce in correlation to the number of minutes he plays.  But the evidence shows the opposite is true.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Not at all.  While I accept that a player will fatigue during a game so do other players on the pitch as well and so the relative contribution of a player will not change.

Here is an example.  Jason Taumalolo is one of the best metre makers in the NRL and probably the most effective ball carrier in the competition.

In the games where he has played between 60 and 80 minutes he averages 11.2 metres per carry and yet in the games where he played between 40 and 60 minutes he averages 10.4.  If your theory stacked up then his effectiveness with the ball would reduce in correlation to the number of minutes he plays.  But the evidence shows the opposite is true.

Aye because he doesnt make as many tackles....

Reckon we leave it here pal - we differ on how we'd line the squad up and thats fair enough

We'll have to wait and see

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Moc said:

Aye because he doesnt make as many tackles....

Reckon we leave it here pal - we differ on how we'd line the squad up and thats fair enough

We'll have to wait and see

One last word (not that I like an argument!)

In the games where Taumalolo averages 11.2 metres per carry (60 to 80 minutes game time) he also averaged 30 tackles in the games.  Where he averages 10.4 metres per carry (40 to 60 minutes game time) he averaged 23 tackles per game.

There is no evidence here that minutes on the pitch or workload effects a players metres per carry which is where this debate started.

(and I will leave it there... fingers crossed for England in the World Cup - I can't wait)

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

One last word (not that I like an argument!)

In the games where Taumalolo averages 11.2 metres per carry (60 to 80 minutes game time) he also averaged 30 tackles in the games.  Where he averages 10.4 metres per carry (40 to 60 minutes game time) he averaged 23 tackles per game.

There is no evidence here that minutes on the pitch or workload effects a players metres per carry which is where this debate started.

(and I will leave it there... fingers crossed for England in the World Cup - I can't wait)

Didnt realise Taumalolo was English, got a nan from Hull has he?

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Moc said:

Didnt realise Taumalolo was English, got a nan from Hull has he?

:D

Now that would be nice.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Davo5 said:

Not again,he's been tried and found wanting at international level,he's at Huddersfield because none of the top teams want him,not good enough,move on.

So has Watkins!

In fact Watkins hasn't shown anything in hi intensity, sub Test match games like Grand Finals or Challenge Cup Semi's and Finals.

He's still up for selection but it's all based on the hope that he'll break through one day and terrorise his opposite number in a match V Aus or NZ.

Cudjoe, Atkins, Shelton, Percival are all potential Eng centres and have just as much validity as Watkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, you can't have Tom AND George Burgess on the bench. We did that Vs New Zealand in game one last year and after 20 minutes of total dominance we threw Tom and George on together and the Kiwis turned the momentum of the game around because they're both so poor defensively.

They were exposed for their lack of side to side mobility and the lighter more agile Kiwi forwards just danced their way past them and through the England line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

IMO, you can't have Tom AND George Burgess on the bench. We did that Vs New Zealand in game one last year and after 20 minutes of total dominance we threw Tom and George on together and the Kiwis turned the momentum of the game around because they're both so poor defensively.

They were exposed for their lack of side to side mobility and the lighter more agile Kiwi forwards just danced their way past them and through the England line. 

I think Tom is more mobile in defence and has a good workrate while George can have a bigger impact with the ball in hand. I would look to start Tom and look to interchange the two with 50 or so minutes for Tom and 30 for George.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.