Jump to content

England Squad


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

most of the players who will representing England will be from the 6 years licenced period of '09 to '14

You've hit the nail on the head here - this is exactly the problem. In the intervening 8 years we haven't had anywhere near enough home grown players coming through the ranks to displace some of the older players in the current squad. Take Leigh for example - I don't understand all the reasons why they haven't been allowed to run an academy, so they've had to rely on loads of overseas players in order to chase promotion this year. I fail to see how that is in the best interests of English player development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Exactly so with the '13 squad, and those player's were brought through and learned their trade in the pre Licencing day's before '09, fast forward and most of the players who will representing England will be from the 6 years licenced period of '09 to '14, possibly Jack Welsby is from '15 onwards back in the P&R system.

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make Harry. The team that was very close to winning the WC in 2017 most of those players started during licensing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make Harry. The team that was very close to winning the WC in 2017 most of those players started during licensing. 

Not quite sure that is the case with the '17 team/squad Bob, Licencing started in '09 so for arguments sake let's use an age of 18 to belong to pre and licenced eras in 09, so that would make the player's 25 on the '17 tour I have not checked the ages of each individual but I would say more were over 25 than under it.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not quite sure that is the case with the '17 team/squad Bob, Licencing started in '09 so for arguments sake let's use an age of 18 to belong to pre and licenced eras in 09, so that would make the player's 25 on the '17 tour I have not checked the ages of each individual but I would say more were over 25 than under it.

My bad I had it as 06. Not sure it makes much difference as I could do a long list of great players produced without P & R. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

You've hit the nail on the head here - this is exactly the problem. In the intervening 8 years we haven't had anywhere near enough home grown players coming through the ranks to displace some of the older players in the current squad. Take Leigh for example - I don't understand all the reasons why they haven't been allowed to run an academy, so they've had to rely on loads of overseas players in order to chase promotion this year. I fail to see how that is in the best interests of English player development.

Yes but I was answering your statement that the '13 squad had more world class player's than today's squad, in that they were from the pre licenced era.

The advocates of Licencing tell us that allows more player's to be developed and utilised by not having the pressure of relegation on them it is that 6 year period that supplies the players of the right age who will be representing us, there will not be many under 23 as Welsby is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes but I was answering your statement that the '13 squad had more world class player's than today's squad, in that they were from the pre licenced era.

The advocates of Licencing tell us that allows more player's to be developed and utilised by not having the pressure of relegation on them it is that 6 year period that supplies the players of the right age who will be representing us, there will not be many under 23 as Welsby is. 

I'm thoroughly confused by your responses - I don't think you realise that you just seem to be proving my point. I.e. that during this 8-year spell of P&R since licensing stopped, we haven't seen anywhere near enough quality English players coming through to displace those older players. I don't believe that the pressures of P&R are the only factor, but I do believe they have been significant. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I'm thoroughly confused by your responses - I don't think you realise that you just seem to be proving my point. I.e. that during this 8-year spell of P&R since licensing stopped, we haven't seen anywhere near enough quality English players coming through to displace those older players. I don't believe that the pressures of P&R are the only factor, but I do believe they have been significant. 

Its 7 years not 8 but irrespective, if our system had been good enough in producing player's we would have far more alternatives than the player's we now have to rely on and also we would not have had to bring in as many from overseas to fill in the gaps.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Its 7 years not 8 but irrespective, if our system had been good enough in producing player's we would have far more alternatives than the player's we now have to rely on and also we would not have had to bring in as many from overseas to fill in the gaps.

Its 8 full seasons since the end of licensing in 2014 H (and arguably 9 if you include 2014 given relegation was reintroduced that season).

Your preferred style of deciding who is in the top flight puts a massive premium on bringing through young talent at most clubs. That is fine, many of us hold contradictory opinions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its 8 full seasons since the end of licensing in 2014 H (and arguably 9 if you include 2014 given relegation was reintroduced that season).

Your preferred style of deciding who is in the top flight puts a massive premium on bringing through young talent at most clubs. That is fine, many of us hold contradictory opinions.

Fair enough Tommy but as for relegation in 2014 nah, 2015 was the first of the 8's leaving licencing and the first MPG was Wakefield v Bradford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Fair enough Tommy but as for relegation in 2014 nah, 2015 was the first of the 8's leaving licencing and the first MPG was Wakefield v Bradford.

There was relegation in 2014 for the clubs in 13th and 14th. That was made plainly clear, and is the crucial end point of licensing (in the context of this debate especially).

2015 upped that to put clubs in 9th 10th 11th and 12th at risk.

That period has also seen the end of u23s, and ultimately u19s (though I believe they have returned now). Prioritising short term again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not a thing I suppose, but probably even so much more than some who want yo put the Crest of a wendyball club on a RL site.

Dohhhh.

Dohhh indeed to one who lives off the backs of various Man U teams .

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth."

JohnM - 17/01/2023

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably, when Wane was Wigan coach... This seems a remarkable admission of picking upon past form, when the player has been impressing in a new position since then.

''England coach Shaun Wane has revealed Kallum Watkins will play as a centre rather than second-row, because he has been a “pain in the backside” there against Wigan in the past.''

Shaun Wane puts faith in “pain in the backside” centre Kallum Watkins (loverugbyleague.com)

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the 24-player squad, I'd go with:

Tomkins

Young
Watkins
Farnworth
Makinson

Welsby
Williams

Hill
Radley
Burgess
Whitehead
Bateman
Knowles

Ackers
Oledski
Thompson
Pearce-Paul

It's all hypothetical, of course, but I didn't really consider Hall or Lees. I could make a case, to varying degrees, for the other 5 in the squad - particularly Sneyd.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bring back the Boyd said:

Still hopeful that Connor will get a call up

God, I hope so!

Obviously not wishing any ill luck or injury on those included, but his skill would add to England's attacking threat and make them more likely to score the points needed to win a semi or final.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1/ Welsby

2/ Makinson

3/ Watkins

4/ Farnworth 

5/  Young

6/ Tomkins

7/ Sneyd

8/ Hill

9/ Ackers/ Radley

10/ Thompson 

11/ Whitehead

12/ Batchelor 

13/ Knowles 

14/ Lees

15/ Ackers/ Radley

16/ Oledski

17/ Burgess

Not happy with Watkins at centre but he’s the best option out of the players selected  Id switch starters between Ackers and Radley with Radley starting the Samoa game and Ackers the other two group games. Don’t think Bateman is available for the first game so if the teams playing well he may find it hard to get back in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok trying to be positive:

Tomkins (good experience and will be able to play out the back as well as any FB)

Makinson/Watkins/Farnworth/Young - Actually a potentially well balanced backline. Watkins still our most natural centre and 2 exciting NRL backs with Pace and who have performed well. Makinson a top class winger.

Welsby/Sneyd - Weakest part of team along with hooker, but Welsby is an X-factor and we know what Sneyd can bring. Think he'll fit in well with Wane's tactics. Williams decent alternative to either player.

Thompson/Burgess/Oledski/Knowles/Radley - As a middle rotation this is pretty strong. Need to accept Knowles and Radley on at the same time for periods as they are two of our best players and need to play.

Bateman/Whitehead - Ok, not in their best form but between them have played in a lot of big games and are experienced and respected in the NRL. We often see people improve form in rep games, hopefully this is the case here.

McIllorum - well at least he's quite hard.

Bench - 2 of the middles mentioned, then maybe Williams with Welsby as the utility who starts and one of the backrowers. Wouldn't go with a second hooker given what we have available.

If it rains that team might beat Samoa.

Formerly Alistair Boyd-Meaney

fifty thousand Poouunds from Keighley...weve had im gid."

3736-mipm.gif

MIPM Project Management and Business Solutions "

Discounts available for forum members contact me for details

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, a front row rotation of Burgess, Thompson and Oledski is pretty darn solid. So too a three-quarter line of Makinson, Young, Farnsworth, and Watkins. They'll certainly go toe-to-toe with any other team in the tournament.

The problem, however, is if (more likely 'when') one or two end up crocked.

That said, I understand why Wane has included old warhorses (no offence intended) like McMeeken and McIlorum. This competition is going to be brutal, so durability will be a major asset from the final group games onward.

In summary: cautiously optimistic.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I'm thoroughly confused by your responses - I don't think you realise that you just seem to be proving my point. I.e. that during this 8-year spell of P&R since licensing stopped, we haven't seen anywhere near enough quality English players coming through to displace those older players. I don't believe that the pressures of P&R are the only factor, but I do believe they have been significant. 

I think more the lack of internationals or should say meaningful internationals to test or blood new crop/others with potential.

OK I know Salford have done well but bringing in Hill and Sneyd says a lot. Of course I can talk it up and try and convince myself its great but it really ain't.  Are we really expecting Hill to play so many games over a short period and not think its a risk.    

Like Salford I thought Leeds were a form team and I'm sure Ireland are pleased about the two from Leeds, maybe they should check out Leeming & Hanley too whom are returning to full fitness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/09/2022 at 13:39, Exiled Wiganer said:

And Saints’ priorities are not England’s priorities.

They have a long history of players being unavailable for international duty. 

Before getting the knives out you do realise that it wasn’t the players or the club who withdrew them, they were withdrawn by the England medical team after they were assessed after the GF. Saints never made public the severity of both players injuries and when the England doctor was given that info he then withdrew them deeming then to be too big a risk for the WC squad.

  • Like 1

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...