England Team announced

First topic message reminder :

3 new caps guaranteed - with more uncapped players on the bench.

Ben Foden; Chris Ashton; Brad Barritt, Owen Farrell, David Strettle; Charlie Hodgson; Ben Youngs; Alex Corbisiero, Dylan Hartley, Dan Cole; Mauritz Botha, Tom Palmer; Tom Croft, Chris Robshaw (captain), Phil Dowson.

Replacements: Rob Webber, Matt Stevens, Geoff Parling, Ben Morgan, Lee Dickson, Jordan Turner-Hall, Mike Brown.

Anyone seen the WEATHER FORECAST?

If the rain hits during the game, combined with the wind then playing a quick moving game may become very difficult indeed!

Not a massive whisky fan, nearest I'll go is Drambuie which my scottish friend informed me was "whisky for tarts"

Hehehe I remember a guy I went to Uni with trying to explain what a pint of "ol' dog" (in a heavy geordie accent) was to an Essex waitress. He was bladdered and she seemed to be getting more and more angry the more he babbled on. Many a good night had on that stuff.

Sam if you can tell me why its called dog ill be most impressed.....

I must admit im a Dark Rum Man...but i dont mind a nice petey Whisky - like Lagavulin or Laphroaig...like drinking soil....

GeordieFalcon wrote:I must admit im a Dark Rum Man

Thats a euphamism right?

No it means i like dark rum such as Captain morgan...etc...

The worst hangover I've ever had was after I was on dark rum. Foul stuff.

flankertye wrote:Not a massive whisky fan, nearest I'll go is Drambuie which my scottish friend informed me was "whisky for tarts"

screamingaddabs wrote:Anyone seen the WEATHER FORECAST?

If the rain hits during the game, combined with the wind then playing a quick moving game may become very difficult indeed!

I think our backs are pretty well set to play a tight running and kicking game too. As long as our forwards can cope (which I am hopeful for) we should be fine

Sam if you can tell me why its called dog ill be most impressed.....

Well I was told it's the excuse given in order to go to the pub. "I'll take the dog for a walk", otherwise known as I'm taking the dog down the pub so I can drink the ale. Don't know how true that is though.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sam if you can tell me why its called dog ill be most impressed.....

Well I was told it's the excuse given in order to go to the pub. "I'll take the dog for a walk", otherwise known as I'm taking the dog down the pub so I can drink the ale. Don't know how true that is though.

Spot on Sam...have a bottle of Dog...

I am partial to an 18 year old black bush

Oban for me. Or Lagavulin, though now that I don't work in my old pub where they'd let me drink it after work, it's mostly only at my parents' that I get it scrounging off Dad's stuff. Ale whilst in London... and I miss the West Country Ale too

Riskysports wrote:I am partial to an 18 year old black bush

Save it for the womens rugby thread.....

Any of the Corbisiero doubters care to take back the nonsense they were spouting last week???

Really? after that Scottish performance in the front row?! Stevens made a big difference when he came on!

thebluesmancometh wrote:Really? after that Scottish performance in the front row?! Stevens made a big difference when he came on!

I thought our front row were excellent....and Corbs was excellent...strong in the set piece and carrying the ball in the loose...

GeordieFalcon wrote:I thought our front row were excellent....and Corbs was excellent...strong in the set piece and carrying the ball in the loose...

+1 Felt that England matched (if not more than) Scotland in the scrum, and that Corbisero, and to a lesser extent Hartley, put in a decent shift in the loose - am going to rewatch the game tonite (so can confirm later)

England more than matched Scotland up front and defied all the "lightweight" comments last week - I am sure they will not be pleased with many other things but the win was the most important here - something to build on for a very difficult match in Rome

GeordieFalcon wrote:I thought our front row were excellent....and Corbs was excellent...strong in the set piece and carrying the ball in the loose...

Corbs was brilliant in my opinion. As you say, set piece was fantastic, but also his work in the loose was very very good. Tackling and breakdown work really shone. Cole on the other hand was good in the set piece, but poor in the loose I thought. He's improved his carrying recently at Tigers, but this didn't transpire onto the pitch on saturday.

England definatly had the better of the scrum throught the game, one of the few positives. Given it was an area that Scotland had expected to be on top hats off to Cole and Corbs.
From what I remeber the only penalty they gave away was the Hartley popping up one. They took wins against the head, and didnt lose their own.

The problem was a lack of invention off the back and Youngs having nothing outside to do with the ball, possible the bizzarest moment being Ashton lineing up as first reciever.

The front five part of the scrum fine, but something needs to be worked on with the backrow and set up behind. Its a lack of organisation that was fairly inevitable with a side like this, Lancaster has a lot to work on.

I think you should stick with Cole for the Italy game, his scrummaging will be very valuable. But against teams like Irealand and Wales playing Stevens at tighthead might be a good idea for his work in the loose.

England more than matched Scotland up front and defied all the "lightweight" comments last week

I think the front row fronted up and defied the criticism (particularly Corbs who was excellent) and even Cole was busy in the rucks and mauls just needs to make a trundle or two more. The second row were pretty rubbish with Botha looking confused for chunks of the game and Palmer anonymous before being replaced by Parling who was an improvement. Flankers did well and chased around the park effectively but Dowson didn't offer the physicality that was needed from 8. Need to upgrade the locks and the 8 for next week.

Sam i agree about the second row....

Palmer was anonymous. Botha was a mixed bag...i thought he was everywhere and actually did some good stuff...but it was balanced with some mistakes aswell....

Garvey and Attwood need to be considered for next gasme.

I liked some of the stuff Botha did but there were times when he stood watching England under pressure and rucks and mauls and couldn't decide whether he should go in or not. If you're playing the enforcer the get your head in there. He was in the pack to add weight and physicality not to stand out and hunt down backs, that's what Croft and Robshaw are for.

Garvey would be my choice with Botha (he did well enough to earn that) on the bench and Parling starting. The midfield looks unbalanced though and I don't know what they plan to do about that.

Id go with that - Botha and Garvey...yup.

I think the midfield is a concern. Barritt did enough...as did farrell...but as a combo is too uncreative.

Pick one at 12 - either Barritt for the power and defence...or Farrell for the boot...then we need to bring in either JJ or May or someone for some spark at 13.

Whether that will happen though is another question.

Botha also got smashed back a few times in the tackle. Garvey would be a better enforcer them him

If we are going to blood an OC against Italy would be for the best. I'd start with Hodgson, Barritt and A N Other and Farrell on the bench (bring him on after 60mins to keep the experience coming). Drop JTH as he didn't do much when he came on (neither did Brown but Farrell will cover the centres). Barritt was the best back by a distance, his tackles were thumping but not OTT and never in danger of missing/being bumped off and there was an awful lot of them. He made it over the gainline in attack and his hands for the little flick to Botha were lovely just add a pace merchant like Joseph or Trinder for the Italty game and we might see more of an attacking team.

I dont see the point in blooding yet another OC.

Lancasters pecking order is Tuiulagi, Trinder, Barrit, JTH .... is there much point if going with the fifth choice guy? Hed only be a place sitter anyway.

Surely much better to keep trying o get these guys better organised and sort out the conditions that allow them to get the ball.

Barrit did the job he was call upon fine at 13. Theres no point is having someone like Tait their till England are capable of getting the ball to him, otherwise England are correect to keep looking at the guy who puts the tackles in sicne that is what his role will be.

When Tuilagi is fit he shoudl stroll back into the side, then teh debate about 12 opens up.

But I dont see much to be gained by making sweeping changes if we are accpeting that a significant portion of Englands problems came form a lack of cohession and training time. Brining in a raft of new players will only continue that.

I thought JTH was physical when he came on, but that was it. To be fair though, we had no ball to utilise at that point! It would be wasteful and counter-productive to play both Barritt and JTH. I'd stick with Barritt 100%, I thought he was outstanding, and never once did I feel a player would break the line with him in front of them. Superb performance.

On that subject though is there any word on Barrits injury?

He limped off, but do we know if it was anything significant? That could open up a whole new raft of questions ( assume JTH to start at 13?)

I think people are believing the hype of JJ a bit too much. He has looked good for Lon Irish. But he doesn't have the best distribution and he hasn't been tested by big Heineken Cup teams yet.

Was he limping?? I didn't see that! I really hope not. Although, he was flying into some of those tackles...

gowales wrote:I think people are believing the hype of JJ a bit too much.

Surely Trinder? Oh no we moved on from that the week he was picked for the squad.

bluestonevedder wrote:Was he limping?? I didn't see that! I really hope not. Although, he was flying into some of those tackles...

Hed taken a knock shortly before and hobbled off. Id asumed hed been replaced for the injury.

Given it left England with a bit of an odd backline ( although then we get into questions about the makeup of the bench...did Brown end up at center?) Id be suprissed if it were tactical. Another thing they got away with in this game.

Personally I would definitely start Barritt at 12. He's the best 12 in England. He put in a strong performance against Scotland.

12 pecking order IMO: Barritt,Farrell,JTH
13 pecking order IMO:Tuilagi,Trinder,Farrell

JJ and the other outside centres are too inexperienced in my opinion.

If both Tuilagi and Trinder are still missing - Barritt and Farrell have to play 12 and 13 vs Italy.

beshocked wrote:Personally I would definitely start Barritt at 12. He's the best 12 in England. He put in a strong performance against Scotland.

12 pecking order IMO: Barritt,Farrell,JTH
13 pecking order IMO:Tuilagi,Trinder,Farrell

JJ and the other outside centres are too inexperienced in my opinion.

If both Tuilagi and Trinder are still missing - Barritt and Farrell have to play 12 and 13 vs Italy.

Cant say Id argue too much with that.

Whats Baritts kicking game like? Ive heard it said elsewhere that its pretty good, just rarely utilised?

Didn't he use to play a bit of fly-half? So I imagine it's pretty good.

Barritt can kick fine, but I really don't care about it and it shouldn't be a big concern. We kicked far too much ball in the Scotland game, Barritt received the ball just three times and almost the only time the back three got any was from fielding kicks.

Moving Farrell to OC should reduce that kicking temptation. Barritt to play IC with the express condition that he doesn't kick unless completely necessary, he is to run and pass.

I hate this obsession by some that an IC should aspire to a ROG kicking game. The best 12s in recent years have been the likes of Nonu, Jauzion, Roberts, SBW, their play is not categorised by their kicking.

Yeah a 12 should be able to kick if the 10 comes under pressure, so as long as they can clearance kick safely that should be enough. The ability to pass is far more important. If they can creatively kick in attack that is fine but there is no need for kicking the ball for territory from 12 in the middle of the pitch

niwatts wrote:Barritt can kick fine, but I really don't care about it and it shouldn't be a big concern. We kicked far too much ball in the Scotland game, Barritt received the ball just three times and almost the only time the back three got any was from fielding kicks.

Moving Farrell to OC should reduce that kicking temptation. Barritt to play IC with the express condition that he doesn't kick unless completely necessary, he is to run and pass.

I hate this obsession by some that an IC should aspire to a ROG kicking game. The best 12s in recent years have been the likes of Nonu, Jauzion, Roberts, SBW, their play is not categorised by their kicking.

Well Lancaster putting them that way around suggests he still lives in 2006 and wants a second fly half at 12 and a big straight runner at 13.
My point would be that Tuilagi at 13 and Barrit reverted to his usual 12 would still allow this, and actually give a really good range of options to the centers. Id also point to a lack of kicking in the back 3, and get concerned if we only have the FH and FB who have a kicking game.

Too much kicking against Scotland, well my theory on that is partly a lack of confidence form the players in themselves and each other ( the sort of conservatism Johnsosn teams were mullered for) and a lack of quick ball and organsisation in the backs. The defense was rarely less well organised than Englands attacking line, the opportunities to run and gain ground or chuck the ball wide werent there so they werent taken.

Maybe they should have given Barrit more opportunities to test his opposite number, he mustve fancied his chances to barge over Max Evans.

As much as I like Brown, I think he should either start or not be in the 22. If he going to get an England start, Italy -improved though they may be- are the team to start him against. There is no point in having Brown or JTH on the bench, I'd rather have Sharples/Flood/Trinder (if back)/ May (I like my subs to be pacy impact players who can cover several positions and though inexperienced May certainly covers those bases)

10. Flood
12. Barritt
13. Tuilagi

Looks like the first choice midfield to me, such a shame that Tuilagi got injured when he did!

Looks like the first choice midfield to me, such a shame that Tuilagi got injured when he did!.

Yeah tell me about it! A centre capable of getting over the gainline would have been very useful in Tigers stuttering HEC campaign. Oh well he should be back soon, though England will probably recall him after his first minute of game time rather than letting him get match fit first ala Flood.

Im almost wishing Farrell is pretty anonymous again agaisnt Italy so that it answers this question and we can get what we feel is a clear first choice.

England have that in the front row now, one other part of the team would be nice. Then they can get on with learning how to play as units and a complete team.