England have, quite rightly, come in for a lot of flak for their performance in the Parisian pressure cooker on Saturday evening. They were outmuscled in the pack and the backs seemed to lack direction – for 60 minutes at least.
The level of their play began to change as the bench was emptied. One man who came away with his reputation enhanced was Danny Cipriani. Introduced at fullback, he offered an option as second playmaker and seemed to allow George Ford to relax – it was noticeable that the Bath man played better after Cipriani was introduced and the two worked well in tandem.
The fact that the two playmakers worked well together is unlikely to have escaped Lancaster’s attention. The problem for Cipriani remains that he is auditioning for a spot as fullback cover, and despite his brilliance from the bench on Saturday, is he the man you want starting fullback in a tight knockout game? I’m not convinced; Alex Goode is still a better option there.
Goode offers those playmaking capabilities, but Henry Slade does even more so. In a perverse way, Cipriani’s performance in Paris may have furthered Slade’s chances of going as one of the four centres. But does Lancaster definitely need to take four out and out centres?
It strikes me that there is a solution that no-one seems to be considering. At the heart of it is Owen Farrell, a man who until now has only been discussed as an option at fly-half – and yet he has plenty of experience playing at centre. Why are we not considering him as an option there?
Centre is the one major headache for Lancaster – primarily because none of the options there have massively owned the jerseys (other than Jonathan Joseph). So why not take one fewer out and out centre, and have Owen Farrell as cover? That would free up an extra space for Cipriani, who can cover 10 and 15.
Brad Barritt and Jonathan Joseph will start the big games; that is almost certain at this point. George Ford, despite his poor performance in Paris at the weekend, is still the bona fide first choice fly-half – everyone has off-days, and he will bounce back against Ireland, of that I am certain.
Farrell will 100% be on the bench for the big games anyway, and he will likely be used as cover for the 12 shirt as well as 10. There would then be one more centre space in the squad for one of Burrell, Burgess, Slade or Twelvetrees. Can you honestly say that any of those names are more deserving of a space in the squad than Cipriani, based on what we’ve seen in the past few weeks?
I suspect if Lancaster were to entertain this idea, it would probably mean curtains for Slade as he would want a more abrasive option – either Burrell or Burgess – in his squad. In Ford, Farrell, Cipriani and Goode he has an ample selection of playmakers. It would be harsh on Slade, who has had an excellent season, but his time in an England shirt will surely come.
Burrell has likely done enough to make that final spot his own, and he can play in either the 12 or 13 jerseys comfortably enough and offers an abrasiveness that the other options do not. It would leave the pecking orders in the centre looking something like this:
12: Barritt, Farrell, Burrell
13: Joseph, Burrell, Barritt
It was only last autumn that Farrell was being talked about as a genuine option at 12, and he did a solid if unspectacular job there against Samoa. He has played in tandem with Ford before and you have to imagine that he would relieve some of the playmaking pressure on Ford’s shoulders were he outside him.
The Danny Cipriani debate, after the weekend’s game in Paris, has all but usurped the selection issues in the midfield as England fans’ number one talking point. Like him or hate him, you can’t deny that his performance in Paris makes a compelling case for his inclusion. Granted this is a bit of a left field option, but it seems to kill two birds with one stone.
It would also give England three genuine options at fly-half – a position that, I would argue, is probably the most important on the pitch. Having sufficient depth there, and not having to rely on a makeshift like Alex Goode, can only be a good thing.
My 31 players for England’s World Cup squad:
Props: Kieron Brookes, Dan Cole, Joe Marler, Mako Vunipola, Dave Wilson
Hookers: Jamie George, Rob Webber, Tom Youngs
Locks: Joe Launchbury, Courtney Lawes, Geoff Parling, George Kruis
Back-row: James Haskell, Ben Morgan, Chris Robshaw, Tom Wood, Billy Vunipola
Scrum-halves: Danny Care, Richard Wigglesworth, Ben Youngs
Fly-half: George Ford
Centres: Brad Barritt, Luther Burrell, Jonathan Joseph
Outside backs: Jack Nowell, Alex Goode, Mike Brown, Anthony Watson, Jonny May
Utility backs: Owen Farrell, Danny Cipriani
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Take us on! Join our Rugby World Cup Predictor and RWC Fantasy games on SuperBru.
As you know by now, we are hilarious, and you should be following us on Facebook and Twitter. 
Me personally I would take cips over Goode as Goode is useless. Also I would take slide as if Joseph gets injured we have no other creative centre
I dont think having Barritt or Burrell in the 13 channel is going to be the cut and thrust a back line needs against the best teams in the world. Joseph is the answer and Slade a decent secondary option. I’d still lose Goode for Cipriani, harsh as it would be on the man.
That is a good squad – I like that idea to be fair. Would like to see Burgess over Burrell though. I’d also pick Easter over Kruis.
Other than that – I’m hoping SL is reading this article!
I’ve still never seen anything from Burrell in an England shirt and can’t understand anyone including him. I’d take Burgess over Burrell for his attitude alone, add his big game experience and his constant communication. Burrell just seems to wander about in a strop. Slade is a genius, like Cipriani but I don’t see them in any set up involving SL … which is a chronic shame. Barritt’s performance against Ireland will be interesting as I’m sure SL has already booked his place in the 31.
That’s probably not far off the final squad, but I reckon SL will take Slade not Cipriani in that other utility back spot alongside Farrell, I can’t quite decide if he will go for Burrell or Burgess and rumour has it that Easter might have made the fourth second row spot…
Telegraph is reporting (and they’re usually right) that Slade is going, so the final centre spot is between Burrell and Burgess. Personally would rather see Burgess going as feel he would make more of an impact off the bench, and out of the three, Barritt/Burrell/Burgess, he is the only one who will truly threatens to break the gain line more often than not.
Given that what we’ve seen from Cipriani, whilst good, is just 25 minutes at the end of a game the French had already won when the pack was finally getting on top and giving the backs far more time, I think its over-stating his case to say that it was a compelling case for his inclusion.
Certainly I thought both Slade and Burgess would have more of a case based on their good 65/80 minute performances behind a pack that was getting equally beaten up.
However, I still think Cipriani should be there
The idea of putting Farrell at centre unless it’s an emergency makes me sad
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, he offers no threat beyond his passing and will not worry any other team lining up against him. If you want a second playmaker to be considered, then take Slade. His defence is as good (if not better as he doesn’t tend to tackle as high as Farrell), he is faster and has quicker feet. He is a threat both when running at a defence or passing. The only difference is in level of experience and I grant you that Farrell beats him there – even if Slade does seem a bit of a natural
My squad
Props: Kieron Brookes, Dan Cole, Joe Marler, Mako Vunipola, Dave Wilson
Hookers: Jamie George, Rob Webber, Tom Youngs
Locks: Joe Launchbury, Courtney Lawes, Dave Attwood, Nick Easter
Back-row: James Haskell, Ben Morgan, Chris Robshaw, Tom Wood, Billy Vunipola
Scrum-halves: Danny Care, Richard Wigglesworth, Ben Youngs
Fly-half: George Ford, Owen Farrell
Centres: Brad Barritt, Sam Burgess, Jonathan Joseph
Outside backs: Jack Nowell, Mike Brown, Anthony Watson, Jonny May
Utility backs: Henry Slade, Danny Cipriani
Does it really matter who is in the centre when the forwards are so apathetic?
Errrr Jamie, hate to nitpick but…
You seem to have used the entire article explaining that you would take Farrell as a Centre option and then in you team at the bottom you have left Faz out and put Goode in
Oops ignore me he’s in the utility spot no the 10 or centre spots
I don’t think you can play about with your two first choice 10s, similarly, if Dan Cole was alright at loosehead, I wouldn’t advocate using him as a utility prop. Now, if Farrell had been used regularly at 12 in the past by England, then it might be possible. But if Farrell settled in at 12 and then Ford went down, would you play your third choice fly-half in a key knock-out game? Or would you move Farrell back across and therefore have to make two changes (Farrell across and bringing in a new 12)?
You take two 10s and then a third guy who can cover in an emergency. But due to the squad size that third guy has to offer elsewhere.
For me, there are 3 spots available in the backs. 3rd and 4th centre and 2nd fullback. One of them has to cover 10, and I’d say out of the guys available I’d only feel happy with Cipriani or Slade in the 21 shirt against Australia or Wales if Ford or Farrell picked up a slight knock before the game (not enough to rule them out the tournament, and therefore not enough for them to be replaced). So is Slade in your top 4 centres? Is Cipriani in your top 2 fullbacks?
For me, the answers are yes and no respectively. After Barritt and Joseph, I’d go with Burgess and Slade. Would possibly be different if Daly had been retained and given a shot in that first France game, but Slade did well and showed more promise than Twelvetrees and Burrell have delivered over the past 12 months. Farrell doesn’t even come into the centres equation.
If Daly (or a fourth centre who can’t play 10) was given the 4th centre spot, you’d have to have Cipriani in as your 2nd fullback because of the cover he offers at 10. But as we have 10 cover in Slade, I think we have to go for the best full-back. If you believe this to be Cipriani, then he’s in. Otherwise it’s Goode.
I think that is why Cipriani has been given goes at 15 only. We know what we can do at 10, but if he gets called up to the World Cup squad he will probably get a run-out in the pool at fullback and only provide cover at 10. It’s just whether he has done enough to replace Goode.
Honestly, the way that you put it in this article, it is probably going to be 2 of Cipriani, Slade and Goode who are in the squad. You ask: ” Can you honestly say that any of those names are more deserving of a space in the squad than Cipriani, based on what we’ve seen in the past few weeks?” – the answer: Yes: Slade’s performance in Twickenham with a pack under pressure was far better than Cipriani’s against a France side which had already gone off the boil having won the game.
Like you say, Goode is probably a better option at FB than Cipriani (though Goode is not as good as Foden, who should be there) – the only way which Cipriani could be in the squad, I feel, is in place of Farrell as the 2nd choice FH. And that isn’t going to happen.
My prediction for ireland is that Slade and Burgess will be on the bench. Ford may be dropped from the 23.
An interesting idea, and one I’m sure Lancaster is considering. I’m actually surprised we haven’t seen Ford and Farrell get some game time together. They played 10/12 so much when they were younger and it worked well then, why not now?
I also like Pablito’s idea of only having four props and four outside backs leaving, you two options for utility backs. Don’t forget we have three wingers who’ve all played at 15 before (although the thought of May playing there is a tad worrying). Still got to decide which two to take though?!?! Pretty sure Goode will already be in anyway so it’s a straight shoot out between Cips and Slade.
It’s not as if the World Cup is being played half way round the world and it would be a nightmare to get a player back in if someone gets injured.
I really like Pablito squad, I would be happy to see that come out on Thursday. i wonder if SL is regretting not having Hartley train with the squad though, I would rather see him named than Webber even though he can’t play in game 1. set piece has been a real issue without him and his selection would really solidify the squad.
I’d like to see Hartley there as well but accepting that he won’t be, Jamie George would be my starting hooker with Youngs on the bench
Why three scum halves? Its one position. Drop Wigglesworth and take another back.
Like Australia?
It is an option but it is a risk because if one has to miss a game, you need a third on the bench.
Think Slade is being seen as an attacking option alternative outside centre to JJ. As mentioned it is therefor a straight Burrell/Burgess shoot out and same for Cips/Goode. My guess is that Goode will get the nod over Cips.
I have a suspicion because of Farrell’ s versatility the Burgess will go ahead of Burrell.
The big debate is the back row for me. Clearly Easter has the ability and form to be a contender, but sacrificing a fourth lock is risky. My guess as the world cup is a snapshot culmination is that the coaches won’t take the risk on Morgan refinding form and fitness but go with the man who has it – Easter.
Same reasoning and logic to include Brookes over Corbisiero.
Looks like Hartley might be joining the party after all Pablito. If not I agree that George starts over Youngs which is a tremendous turnaround from not even making the original party!
I think Easter will go although I don’t know if it will be in place of Morgan, BV looked very lightweight on Saturday and I think SL may take a punt on his fitness due to his carrying ability. Easter provides a decent lock/back row cover so think he will go nominally as 4th choice there.
I would take both Burgess and Brooke’s over the others anyway but would love to see a place for Cips somewhere – I personally don’t see why Watson couldn’t be back up 15 and allow Cips in as a utility player
I think Australia are using Giteau as 3rd choice scrum half aren’t they? Apparently he has played there before
Cipriani should have been 1ST choice England fly1/2 for the past 2 yrs! This is SCW’s opinion folks. I 100% agree.
Farrell shouldn’t be within a 100 miles of this team. He’s only a goal kicker & a tackler. Ltd to state the least.
Ford hasn’t just had ‘off days’ as the author opines, he’s inexp & FLAWED! He’s a decent club player when behind a dom pack, but that’s all. He’s been elevated by the media & many here above his station. As expressed prev, elsewhere, he made 4 unforced errors v France within the 1st 7 mins! Dropped out on the full, missed a pen touch, missed a straight fwd catch & kicked aimlessly down Spedding’s throat; as per the Prem final when he then kicked mindlessly x3 in a row down the oppo’s necks when Bath needed TRIES, POSSESSION that late on! He also ran W 2 E, cramping his outside runners, late v France & his main weapon often seemed to be the high ball!? 2nd behind Cip only.
No skin off mine, but Cip, who almost certainly seems to be out, is MORE exp & single handedly kick started England’s ‘fight back’ in Paris. Also had an initial hand in JJ’s try. What are some of you people thinking!? What is Lancaster thinking!? He’s just taken England down to 5 in the rankings when he’d prev stated that they should be 2 by the WC & comes out with this muddled thinking regds his picks!
As for punt on another centre. Henry Slade had 1 (what, only 1!?) shot at the WC & he surely put his hand up as 1 having nous. He played what was in front of him, with his head up.
The ‘failed’ Burgess @ centre. Good luck if he goes.