Saracens vs Leicester

First topic message reminder :

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Sam-Harrison-miss-Leicester-Tigers-key-clash/story-15242608-detail/story.html

Latest news on the Saracens-Leicester clash - Looks like Sam Harrison will miss the crunch game against Saracens.

With Micky Young banned,Harrison injured and Youngs on England duty does this mean Grindal will start at scrum half?

With Cole with England,Castro injured and White banned for 1 week who will be playing at tighthead? Brookes?


Saracens have all their fearsome frontrow options intact. Gill,Stevens,Brits,Smit,Nieto and George are all available for selection.

Expect line ups in my opinion:

Saracens

1.Gill
2.Brits
3.Nieto
4.Kruis
5.Smith
6.Melck
7.Saull
8.Wray

9.De Kock/Spencer/Stringer
10.Mordt
11.Taylor
12.Powell
13.Wyles
14.Short
15.Goode



Leicester

1.Ayerza
2.Hawkins/Chuter
3.Mulipola
4.Slater/Kitchener
5.Skivington
6.Mafi
7.Salvi
8.Waldrom
9.Grindal
10.Flood
11.A.Tuilagi
12.Allen
13.M.Tuilagi
14.Agulla
15.Murphy

ChequeredJersey wrote:
Unfair on CH's defence nowdays.

Perhaps correct but it's still not up to:
Wilkinson: Just don't go there because you'll be dumped painfully
Flood: Big fell - you won't get through him
Farrell: Aggressive and courageous.

I think Cipriani has also improved from the revolving door.

True, but Scotland tried to exploit the 10-12 channel , and it failed with Hodgson making something like 13 tackles with none missed. He hasn't missed any all tournament and has made a lot. Tbf I'd still rather not have him one on one with Nonu again but he's hardly the only player in the world that comes into that category

Well, we travelled round teh M25 with a fealing of dread, so to travel back in elation was wonderfull.

Personally I felt that ~sarries should have won - when they ran the ball they looked phenomenal - yet far to often they chose not too. I said before that their apparent liking for tight matches would come back to bite them.

As to Flood - well it is hard to be too critical of his tactical kicking when Grindal was so poor inside him. Grindal was hesitant the whole game, often made poor decisions and his passing especially of the left hand) was the worst I have seen it.

Re- the drop goal - Flood was screaming at Grindal telling him where he was and that he wanted it. Grindal kept ignoring him - and then when he passed was high and wide. flood had no chance to drop that goal and made a sensible decision not to go for it. All that said I would give him another couple of weeks with Tigers.

Re-crowd - it felt like more than 7,200. I have a funny feeling that 7.2k would still be the highest at VR this season.

Oh and Portnoy - leave Geordan alone. He came to us as a teenager and is a Leicester legend - not just a "foreigner".

Don't want to have a go at someone who actually travelled to the game, but you are the first person I have seen criticise Grindal's performance. My vantage point in my room I thought he had a great game (one kick aside).

LondonTiger wrote:Well, we travelled round teh M25 with a fealing of dread, so to travel back in elation was wonderfull.

Personally I felt that ~sarries should have won - when they ran the ball they looked phenomenal - yet far to often they chose not too. I said before that their apparent liking for tight matches would come back to bite them.

As to Flood - well it is hard to be too critical of his tactical kicking when Grindal was so poor inside him. Grindal was hesitant the whole game, often made poor decisions and his passing especially of the left hand) was the worst I have seen it.

Re- the drop goal - Flood was screaming at Grindal telling him where he was and that he wanted it. Grindal kept ignoring him - and then when he passed was high and wide. flood had no chance to drop that goal and made a sensible decision not to go for it. All that said I would give him another couple of weeks with Tigers.

Re-crowd - it felt like more than 7,200. I have a funny feeling that 7.2k would still be the highest at VR this season.

Oh and Portnoy - leave Geordan alone. He came to us as a teenager and is a Leicester legend - not just a "foreigner".

LT. I know full well where Geordan stands on the Leicester pantheon. And a foreigner he bears comparison with Pat Howard. And to my mind you can't say better than that.

But still 7,200 is pretty feeble at home for the top dogs against the historically best side that pro rugby England have ever produced.

Here's a stat that probably won't be of any interest, but having just checked the SportGuru league, not a single person in the 606 league thought Tigers would win!

I thought Tigers would win!

I thought Flood's tactical kicking was woeful and his game management poor throughout - if he was selected and played like that I'd dread to think what the Welsh backthree would do to us.

His distribution was ok, but if the tactic of pass it to Tuilagi didnt work it was rubbish kick after rubbish kick - I thought he got an easy ride with his pack today too, so would hope he doesnt get called into the England squad.

Think Hodgson's passing is the best in the AP, so would love to see what lines he could get Tuilagi running. Would drop Barritt, as think Farrells kicking will be invaluable for England. Tempted to drop Ashton for Sharples too.

maverickmak wrote:Don't want to have a go at someone who actually travelled to the game, but you are the first person I have seen criticise Grindal's performance. My vantage point in my room I thought he had a great game (one kick aside).

It is my shortest journey of the season, so despite Watford being a dump - i have to go really.

We all felt that Grindal's passing was woefull - it was slow and loopy, so Flood was standing ever deeper to give himself a chance of not being charged down. Early(ish) in the first half Grindal lobbed a loopy one high and to floods right, with the rush defence of Sarries a kick was not an option so sensibly Flood had to run and did pretty well beating 3 or 4 men. The breakdown of communication on about the 50th minute when close to the line Waldrom was running a dummy run and Grindal just lobbed the ball towards him - when he was not looking - is one example of bad decision making. Laster we had a 4 on 2 overlap on the left, Grindal went right instead and with no support kicked - kicking out on the full by about 5m. However as 4th choice his performance was about what you would expect.

This contrasts with the Play-off semi last year, when Young's passing was on top form and Flood put in a consumate display of tactical kicking. Flood plays better with a FH who offers a running threat, then he can stand flat and actually kicks better from there.

England will play Dickson at 9, Hodgson at 10 with Farrell and Manu in the centre I reckon.

dammit_chris wrote:I thought Flood's tactical kicking was woeful and his game management poor throughout - if he was selected and played like that I'd dread to think what the Welsh backthree would do to us.

His distribution was ok, but if the tactic of pass it to Tuilagi didnt work it was rubbish kick after rubbish kick - I thought he got an easy ride with his pack today too, so would hope he doesnt get called into the England squad.

Think Hodgson's passing is the best in the AP, so would love to see what lines he could get Tuilagi running. Would drop Barritt, as think Farrells kicking will be invaluable for England. Tempted to drop Ashton for Sharples too.

As long as JTH and Brown aren't on the bench, I don't mind that much. They just aren't bench players

dammit_chris wrote:
Think Hodgson's passing is the best in the AP, so would love to see what lines he could get Tuilagi running. Would drop Barritt, as think Farrells kicking will be invaluable for England. Tempted to drop Ashton for Sharples too.

Given Tuilagi's positive return, it's Dickson at 9, Tuilagi at 13, and either Hodgeson + Farrell, or Flood + Barritt in between.

Hodgeson + Barritt is a possible but I'm scarred from too many games lost by a few points where Hodgeson missed kickable goals.

Grindal followed up that one shocking kick with a couple of great ones, but I'd agree that his passing wasn't great. Really good to see the impact Tuilagi had on his return, and I was surprised to see him kick a few long ones downfield which I didn't know he could do.

Also, the fact that that was Leicester's third choice tighthead is just outrageous.

Apparently he can play both sides so may well end up as 2nd choice loosehead when Castro and Cole are back because that was a very impressive first start, hopefully he can keep it going

Alex_Germany wrote:

dammit_chris wrote:
Think Hodgson's passing is the best in the AP, so would love to see what lines he could get Tuilagi running. Would drop Barritt, as think Farrells kicking will be invaluable for England. Tempted to drop Ashton for Sharples too.

Given Tuilagi's positive return, it's Dickson at 9, Tuilagi at 13, and either Hodgeson + Farrell, or Flood + Barritt in between.

Hodgeson + Barritt is a possible but I'm scarred from too many games lost by a few points where Hodgeson missed kickable goals.

Flood's kicking over the past year or so has been far from bankable (some would say down to Alred's influence).

Farrell may well currently be the best kicker at Saracens, but Hodgson is a more than able kicker and the premiership's most prolific by some measure.

What must not happen (but I expect Lancaster do do anyway) is play Farrell at IC, he should play at FH, feature on the bench or not at all. Playing him outside a FH is not inspiring attacking intent, and sacrificing attacking abilty for a 5-10% bump in kicking accuracy is a false economy.

Oh man, that was so sweet, the look on the Saffas faces was priceless.

Another full house at VR I notice... NOT.

His distribution was ok, but if the tactic of pass it to Tuilagi didnt work it was rubbish kick after rubbish kick - I thought he got an easy ride with his pack today too, so would hope he doesnt get called into the England squad

Can't agree with that, Tuilagi was more often used as the dummy runner and largely saved for the second half. Allen and Smith were intially used more and then Manu and Agulla brought in during the second half. The kicking was alright and clearly followed a game plan. In the first half it was long as possible with the Tigers line compeltely flat to snuff out the counter. We weren't controlling the tactical kicking battle so in the second half it went to up and unders with chasers (2 x Brits knock ons) and kicks to the corners. Flood wasn't at his best but he played well enough given some iffy passing from Grindal.

Also, the fact that that was Leicester's third choice tighthead is just outrageous..

3rd choice loose head, 5th choice tight head (Castro and Brookes injured, White banned and Cole with England). Thanks to Freddie Tuilagi.

I don't think Flood has done enough to get into the matchday 23, but I thought Tuilagi was impressive and looks to have further matured as a player. But will Lancaster drop Barritt for him, or will he have to be content with a place on the bench?

I'd start Tuilagi personally. The Saffas back line has been as impotent as a Nevada gaming commisioner, Wales will lap it up. Tuilagi offers a genuine threat in midfield but I do agree, flood would be a gamble at the moment.

That last minute showed why Tuilagi has to play for England. Whilst Barritt and Farrell are both good players at what they do, neither makes that break which took us up to halfway and gave us a chance to win the game. The question is, who plays at 12?

No doubt in my mind Lancaster will play Farrell at 12 - he needs his kicking -and I reckon if Lancaster gets the job he intends to have Farrell as first choice 10 going forward.

To be honest I think playing Farrell and Tuilagi at 12/13 is just to dangerous against that Welsh midfield. They are both only just 20 years of age and neither of them organises the defence for their club. Farrell doesn't get the backline moving enough to be a first choice 10 and so I think it will have to go down between Flood and Hodgson with Farrell on the bench. Hodgson and Flood are both experienced flyhalfs and Hodgson had a good kicking record with Sale.

killer938 wrote:That last minute showed why Tuilagi has to play for England. Whilst Barritt and Farrell are both good players at what they do, neither makes that break which took us up to halfway and gave us a chance to win the game. The question is, who plays at 12?

Well, I think we can all agree that it's going to be either Farrell or Barritt. I think inside Tuilagi, they might become a different proposition for Wales because in Tuilagi they have someone that can break tackles.

If Farrell is selected, I don't see Flood even making the bench for the game (unless JTH drops out all together).

there are whispers that it may be Farrell 10, Flood 12, Manu 13. I hope those are absolute nonsense.

However Lancaster has shown that he likes a 2nd 5/8th rather than an IC. So expect to see 10 and 12 made up of 2 from Hodgson, Farrell & Flood.

Barritt is an IC so really Manu should be back in as he is fit and in form.

Flood hat bloody better not play 12- he's either in form enough to start 10 or not, he is not an IC

[quote="formerly known as Sam"]

Also, the fact that that was Leicester's third choice tighthead is just outrageous..

3rd choice loose head, 5th choice tight head (Castro and Brookes injured, White banned and Cole with England). Thanks to Freddie Tuilagi.

Sam - Mullipola, what are your thoughts on him? Would he do a job for another prem side, that wouldn't have the luxury of Castro/Cole? Is he a half decent scrummager?

[quote="Bathite"]

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Also, the fact that that was Leicester's third choice tighthead is just outrageous..

3rd choice loose head, 5th choice tight head (Castro and Brookes injured, White banned and Cole with England). Thanks to Freddie Tuilagi.

Sam - Mullipola, what are your thoughts on him? Would he do a job for another prem side, that wouldn't have the luxury of Castro/Cole? Is he a half decent scrummager?

Don't know if Sam will agree with me as he will know a lot more about him but based on that performance yesterday he is more than a half decent scrummager. Admittedly he was up against Smit who isn't a natural prop but the Leicester scrum had the Saracens scrum in their pockets all day. His work in the loose though was awesome, he just appeared everywhere. Again, its only on performance but I am greedy and want to keep him at Leicester

In previous appearences (LV Cup and A League) as well as comments coming out of the Tigers camp it's been thought his scrummaging is a little average and that he wasn't in a great physical shape when he arrived. He was back in Samoa having played in the RWC and Freddie Tuilagi became his agent and made a phone call to Cockers saying he'd got a decent prop worth a trial. Tigers have clearly put time and effort into him as he is now looking leaner and is starting to scrummage better.

It was interest to notice that Barnes was banging on about him in the scrum but everytime Ryan showed any analysis of the scrum it was Ayerza doing the damage and Mulipola holding firm. Clearly the influence of Mulipola in the loose was terriffic and I think he is likely to be the replacement for Stanko at the end of next season as he can play both sides and his game is closer to Ayerza's than Boris' and at 24 he's younger.

Cumbrian wrote:
Well, I think we can all agree that it's going to be either Farrell or Barritt. I think inside Tuilagi, they might become a different proposition for Wales because in Tuilagi they have someone that can break tackles.

If Farrell is selected, I don't see Flood even making the bench for the game (unless JTH drops out all together).

I suspect Farrell will look a lot more dangerous at 12 with an actual 13 outside him.

I agree, if Hodgson and Farrell are in the matchday 23 then you don't have another FH on the bench, particularly one in iffy form. I also want to see a back 3 specialist on the bench.

I'm expecting Hodgson and Farrell to start with either Barritt or Tuilagi, with the other one on the bench. I think Brown will retain his bench spot, which means no place for Flood.

Tigers destroyed Sarries at scrum-time.

DaveM wrote:Tigers destroyed Sarries at scrum-time.

But as Sam said this was primarily Ayerza doing a number on Nieto first and then on Stevens. Mulipola was strong against Smit - why is he playing loosehead? - and held his own against Gill.

Ayerza is probably the best prop in the AP right now.

I'm not arguing with that, I'm just saying it's unusual to see Saracens worked over like that.

I think Smit is a prop because Sarries realise that George is too good a player not to be regularly in the matchday 23.

Incidentally, when Sarries move the ball, even a substantially weakened Sarries side, they are fantastic. When are they going to trust themselves to play more than a limited game plan?

ChequeredJersey wrote:Flood hat bloody better not play 12- he's either in form enough to start 10 or not, he is not an IC

Hear bloody hear!

DaveM wrote:
I think Smit is a prop because Sarries realise that George is too good a player not to be regularly in the matchday 23.

Seems very strange that if that was the case, why did they bother even signing Smit? Must be mainly for off the field stuff I reckon, probably helped raise profile in SA even more with sponsors etc and offers a lot in terms of experience and/or coaching to the youngsters.

Incidentally, when Sarries move the ball, even a substantially weakened Sarries side, they are fantastic. When are they going to trust themselves to play more than a limited game plan?.

They have some excellent attacking players and if they had opened up and actually maintained some sustained attacks ball in hand rather than going for the territory and penalty approach then the could have won. Short, Goode, Powell, Wyles were all looking lively ball in hand but they never really went for it, particularly in the second half. I was disappointed that Spencer seemed to kick first and pass second especially after Goode had gone too 10 and Tomkins to 13. I thought that might have been Sarries calling 'game on'.

why did they bother even signing Smit?

Because he is an experienced leader, played prop and hooker at the highest level and also looks good for the sponsors and PR of Sarries. An astute signing even if he isn't the player he once was. Seemed a little silly to put him up against a massive prop like Mullipola though he was always going to struggle to move him.

Ayerza is probably the best prop in the AP right now

Ever since the RWC he seems to feel he has something to prove. My man of the match against Sarries as he worked his socks off and dispatched two experienced international tightheads to give Tigers the scrum penalties that were a foundation for our points scoring.

DaveM wrote:I suspect Farrell will look a lot more dangerous at 12 with an actual 13 outside him.

I don't think he will, he's just not attack inclined. He was pretty underwhelming playing IC with the dangerous Daly outside him for the U20 side at the JWC as well. Even if you're going down the 2nd FH route, a 12 has to offer something with the ball in hand, hard running or quick feet, Farrell doesn't, he kicks or passes and not enough of the latter. With no running threat from the 10-12 axis good defences will know that almost everything will be coming through 13 (if it gets out there, it rarely has the last few games) and have an easy time shutting it down.

Halfway through the Italy game, much like the whole game the week before, Barritt had received the ball barely a handful of times. In the second half with no other choice but to push Barritt finally started getting the ball before Farrell and he was able to have a go, making 2 clean breaks and beating 3 defenders, about as much as the rest of the team over the two matches.

Hodgson is a highly capable kicker, the 5-10% bump in kicking accuracy that Farrell might possibly add is a false economy in terms of the bigger picture if he is played at IC. Both centres have to be decent threats. I'd rather have Farrell start at 10 than 12.

Anyone else really pleased to see that idiot Gill get an unexpected reply from Chuter when he tried his silly game of holding back players off the ball?
He's been doing it to others all season but hopefully the shock of tasting Georges elbow in the face and a penalty and stern talking to will make him give it a rest.

Well dont Tigers on the win, for what it's worth i'd backed you the whole time and now there's at least a bit of light betwen us and Saracens.

Saracens just don't seem to want to break away from teams when they are in the lead, plenty of times they had a chance to push for a score but never took it, just opted to kick and hope. And finally a team with a strong pack and real determination showed them the weakness of this strategy.

I was quite pleased with Flood's game, remember he does have one of the worst backlines in the Jeff around him. Bar Manu who from the top 8 would actually sign any of those players from 9-15? With what Flood has he did a good job, I can not wait to see what he can do next season if all the transfer talk is to be believed.

I'd have for Eng:
9. Dickson
11. Strettle
10. Hodgson
12. Barritt
13. Manu
14. Ashton
15. Foden

21. Youngs
22. Flood
23. May (covers the whole backline, but wont happen)

stlowe wrote:

DaveM wrote:I suspect Farrell will look a lot more dangerous at 12 with an actual 13 outside him.

I don't think he will, he's just not attack inclined. He was pretty underwhelming playing IC with the dangerous Daly outside him for the U20 side at the JWC as well. Even if you're going down the 2nd FH route, a 12 has to offer something with the ball in hand, hard running or quick feet, Farrell doesn't, he kicks or passes and not enough of the latter. With no running threat from the 10-12 axis good defences will know that almost everything will be coming through 13 (if it gets out there, it rarely has the last few games) and have an easy time shutting it down.

Halfway through the Italy game, much like the whole game the week before, Barritt had received the ball barely a handful of times. In the second half with no other choice but to push Barritt finally started getting the ball before Farrell and he was able to have a go, making 2 clean breaks and beating 3 defenders, about as much as the rest of the team over the two matches.

Hodgson is a highly capable kicker, the 5-10% bump in kicking accuracy that Farrell might possibly add is a false economy in terms of the bigger picture if he is played at IC. Both centres have to be decent threats. I'd rather have Farrell start at 10 than 12.

Completely agree here, he either plays 10 (in a couple of seasons maybe(but by then I expect one of Burns/Clegg/Ford/Carlisle to have exceeded him)) or he benches; Farrel is not an international centre. And TBH take out the kicking and he's not an international player full stop. It's tough but that's the reality really. We may as well play Homer on one wing at the moment if we want a kicker he'll have less of a negative impact on the team, sadly Homer has the wrong dad...

I thought Farrell did ok for England at IC in the JWC. With England having an excellent back 3 I'd say you can have a distributor at 12 so you can release them as well as the other centre. I think it's a mistake to conclude that England showed little in hand in the first two games solely because of Farrell. The games were played in difficult conditions and this was a side that was trying to find its feet - if Farrell wasn't doing what the coaches wanted he wouldn't have played the full 80 in both games. Whoever plays on Saturday I'd expect more ambition from England. Personally I think Farrell will start, and he'll certainly be in the matchday 23.

This time next year I suspect Farrell will be fighting it out with Burns for the England 10 shirt. Personally I don't think he's ready for it yet, but we'll find out what Lancaster reckons. The fact he's finished two games at 10 suggests Lancaster doesn't think he's far away.

I also think the gap between Farrell and Hodgson as international kickers is considerably more than 5-10%.

DaveM wrote:I thought Farrell did ok for England at IC in the JWC.

I thought we played better with Mills there, something I hadn't expected before the tournament

DaveM wrote:With England having an excellent back 3 I'd say you can have a distributor at 12 so you can release them as well as the other centre

He's not doing that though and hasn't shown much sign of it in his career to date.

It's just as/more effective to have that coming from 10 (particularly as Hodgson is a better distributor with greater vision) and have an extra running option at 12. Successful 2nd FH 12s offer something with ball in hand as well as distribution e.g. Giteau, or they have a FH inside them that likes to run. The gameplan of two principally passing & kicking 10-12s (usually with a left & right foot balance, which Hodgson & Farrell don't have) never produced the most threatening running rugby and rightfully fell from favour over the last decade as defensive structures stepped up. Not having someone constantly just outside them that threatens the gainline or holds the defence by force or guile narrows a FH's creative possibilities.

DaveM wrote:I also think the gap between Farrell and Hodgson as international kickers is considerably more than 5-10%.

Of Farrell's successful kicks over the last two games (3 from 5 against Scotland, 5 from 5 against Italy), I reckon Hodgson would have made most, with a question mark over one in the Italy game.

yappysnap might be on to something, if the extra kick or two is that important, draft the even better Homer in, the midfield is too important a platform in creating tries to restrict in the manner it is. Farrell should only be considered as a FH, started or benched. I'm well prepared to be disappointed though, I expect Lancaster to play him at 12.

How has Hodgeson been on the real pressure kicks at club level?

A pressure kick - to win or lose a premiership match, is probably as much a test as a routine international kick. But Hodgeson failed before on pressure kicks for England - too many times. If it's Wales 24 England 22, with a penalty to England 40m out with 2 minutes to go would you bank on Hodgeson?

Maybe he's sorted out the mental issues but we won't know till he kicks for England.

That said, by then the sub (Farrell or Flood) will be on the pitch.

Based on what Saracens people here say, I'd be tempted to go with Hodgeson, Barritt and Tuilagi.

I don't like the phrase 'play some part'. That suggests to me that Tuilagi may not be starting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/17049773

Well he isn't going to make sweeping changes to a winning side. Dixon and Morgan will probably start, and given Barritt and Farrell have both done what Lancaster wants of them I wouldn't be at-all surprised to see Tuilagi on the bench. I'm sure he'll be in the starting line-up come Paris if not this weekend.

If there is a high pressure kick to win the game I don't want Flood or Hodgson taking it.

St Lowe, I'm not arguing that Hodgson/Farrell is the long-term solution at 10-12, but I don't think it's the hopeless idea you suggest. After-all, you enjoyed Ryan Mills at 12 at the JWC, and he's a FH.

Alex_Germany wrote:But Hodgeson failed before on pressure kicks for England - too many times. If it's Wales 24 England 22, with a penalty to England 40m out with 2 minutes to go would you bank on Hodgeson?

Can you list 'many' examples?

Without a 10, 12, 13 more likely to break down the opposition I don't think we would get to a 24-22 scoreline. It's all very well having the more accurate pressure kicker with 2 mins to go, but not much use if you haven't scored a try all game and are 12 points behind.

DaveM wrote:St Lowe, I'm not arguing that Hodgson/Farrell is the long-term solution at 10-12, but I don't think it's the hopeless idea you suggest. After-all, you enjoyed Ryan Mills at 12 at the JWC, and he's a FH.

I didn't think you were. My initial point was that I didn't agree with you that "Farrell will look a lot more dangerous at 12 with an actual 13 outside him". The problem has been less who has played outside and more his natural affinity for the 12 position, he's not much of gainline threat and he doesn't do enough to engineer space and ball for his midfield partner or enable his 10 to do so.

I didn't say I particularly enjoyed Mills playing at 12, just that I was surprised that I thought he looked better in the position than Farrell for that competition. My comments at the time were that I thought SH & IC were the weaker aspects of the backline. As I've said above, I'm not against a FH type playing 12 per se, but they must be running inclined.

I think it's pretty obvious that Farrell will look a better player with Tuilagi outside him than Barritt, but I guess we'll see on Saturday.

Also I'm not convinced that Farrell has no running game, I think his role in the side(s) is not to run. Again, we'll see.

I think it's pretty obvious that Farrell will look a better player with Tuilagi outside him than Barritt, but I guess we'll see on Saturday.

Also I'm not convinced that Farrell has no running game, I think his role in the side(s) is not to run. Again, we'll see..

It's Farrell's lack of a passing game that worries me. He can kick but I don't think I've even seen him do more than throw a long pass and never from first receiver. There's no slight of hand or clever passing and when you couple that with the lack of a running game he is starting to look very limited. So far Barritt is the only member of the backline to have pulled his weight in open play and is responsible for organising the defence. He should certainly not be dropped and I'd let Hodgson and Flood take the kicks, they've done it on big stages before and they both offer so much more at 10 than Farrell. Manu has to start as he's the best centre we have, if Lancaster wastes him on the bench then he's a fool.

If Farrells job isnt to run doesn that make it a bit of a problem having Hodgson inside him? Added to that under Lancaster the scrum halves havent been running either ( hard to say if its by order or simply lack of endevour/opportunity). Previously they had genuine attacking threats from Youngs/Care making snipeing runs and Floods ability to take a gap when it was made by them. Now England have no running threat from 9 to 12 followed by Barrit who can only run straight forward into the nearest defender. Is it any wonder that even the weak sides they have faced so far sides have found it easy to defend against Englands back play? Its only really by pressuring and capitalising on opposition mistakes that England have had much success so far, they will need more than that.

Its all very well saying players coming back in have to earn their shirts but didnt the likes of Farrell get them on a free pass in the first place ( ie england had run out of fit alternatives)? Now they get to hang on to them because the "did a job" in a poor side for a couple of games they always should have won?

Agree with all of that PSW.