Owen Farrell - I must be in a minority

First topic message reminder :

Personally I felt it was an OK performance by Farrell, but people on here and in the press are raving about his performance.

For me England were let down by Farrell's first instict to kick the ball. On several occassions the forwards (usually the front row) had secured turnover and with men over Farrell kicked the ball instead of putting it through the hands. When he could be bothered to pass, Tuilagi looked a constant threat. Farrell also failed to actually complete a tackle, at times he was an effective roadblack, but he never actually downed his man.

As I said I must however be in a minority.

Farrell had a good game, 1st test, against a good welsh side, his midfield really helped him defensively, but he looked to vary his game, did what he did pretty well, kicking was good but no tries for England to show from their best game of the championship so far. Definitely worth keeping him there for the next couple of games I'd say, he did well, showed his inexperience at times but he was always going to. I'd say 7/10 as a rating.

(Can we stop calling Scott Williams try lucky, it wasnt lucky, he purposelly went in to rip the ball, did, looked up and spotted the space, chipped ahead perfectly and beat the English defence to the ball, it was a beautiful piece of skill in a counter-attacking try.)

Jack's try was excellent and is being overlooked - it was a great try actually

aitchw. A very fair and true opinion. He and Flood can now fight for the 10 shirt. A good place to be for England. On recent form I would start OW again.

Just watched it again and couple of things to note on that Williams try....Strettle was very slow to get across ( possibly tiredness and getting caught in two minds as to whether to go for the ball ) and the bounce was lucky.
But He did everything he could to make it happen. Good decision making, good execution of skills, great speed. Great try.

Comfort wrote:(Can we stop calling Scott Williams try lucky, it wasnt lucky, he purposelly went in to rip the ball, did, looked up and spotted the space, chipped ahead perfectly and beat the English defence to the ball, it was a beautiful piece of skill in a counter-attacking try.)

People are calling it lucky? I thought it was a great play. And obviously the match decider.

Somewhat late coming to this thread but I do tend to agree with LT. I would say that I felt his performance was assured and considering our next 2 games are against France & Ireland we're going to need a strong defence, so he should definitely keep his place. However... I can't remember where I read this, but someone described Farrell's attack playing as forced I feel that is the perfect description. I don't think he has the ability yet to unlock the top defences, which showed on Saturday. There is no doubting the guy has plenty of potential, but I don't think that performance was as awe inspring as some would like us to believe.

People are calling it lucky? I thought it was a great play. And obviously the match decider..

I think people are talking about the bounce because it sits up beautifully into his hands which stops the English defender (I thought it was Croft but I may have been mistaken) getting to him. A moments hesitation from a less than perfect bounce and he would have been caught and it would have been 50/50 as to whether he got it over the line. No one is questioning the skill in the rip, look and kick as that was excellent.

FH is going to be facinating for England on the build up to 2015. Farrell, Flood, Burns and Cipriani are all candidates, with Ford and possibly Heathcote also likely to be pushing hard.

Shorter-term the England back 3 is struggling slightly, and it's hard to imagine that is best fixed by dropping the cover on the bench. Farrell will obviously start at 10 so with Hodgson fit could he displace Flood from the matchday squad?

formerly known as Sam wrote:

People are calling it lucky? I thought it was a great play. And obviously the match decider..

I think people are talking about the bounce because it sits up beautifully into his hands which stops the English defender (I thought it was Croft but I may have been mistaken) getting to him. A moments hesitation from a less than perfect bounce and he would have been caught and it would have been 50/50 as to whether he got it over the line. No one is questioning the skill in the rip, look and kick as that was excellent.

Yeah I think youre correct there Sam. First time I watched it I had assumed it was stretlle as it was a lanky fair hairded guy coming off the wing and that he was just slow getting across. Theres a definate hestation though as the ball bounces back and up allowing Williams to accelerate off rather than slowing to scoop it up. Its a bad pause as hes then cutting back too fine. Had he kept running straight on he wouldve been right level with Williams when he dived and had a slightly better chance of tapping him. Had the ball bounced forward the two players wouldve been competing to touch it down ( if it hadnt evaded both and gone over the dead ball line) Had it bounced to the side it couldve helped either. There was a slight element of luck in that, but Williams used his pace and a good kick to put himself in a psoition to benefit from that.

DaveM wrote:FH is going to be facinating for England on the build up to 2015. Farrell, Flood, Burns and Cipriani are all candidates, with Ford and possibly Heathcote also likely to be pushing hard.

Shorter-term the England back 3 is struggling slightly, and it's hard to imagine that is best fixed by dropping the cover on the bench. Farrell will obviously start at 10 so with Hodgson fit could he displace Flood from the matchday squad?

Dont mention the C word!
Apparently Lancaster went over to talk to him before the 6 nations which means hes still in the frame, although this latest car crash thing wont exactlky have added to his reputation. Id think long and hard about the disruptive presence he could have on the squad even if hes playing well when he comes back. Hes certainly got a lot more magic than Farrell ( on his day) but the current England side is suppossed to be built on team ethic, pride and hard work...all things hes famed for lacking. If Lncaster took one piece of advice from Hugh Morriss it should have been the impact getting rid of the non team players who wouldnt listen to the coaches had on their squad. Id want to see more than playin ability from Cipriani before having him back in the EPS, and hes only played one proper season in what 4 years?

As for the current conetnders, Id be very surprised to see Hodgson back in the matchday squad ahead of Flood. He was only a place filler in the first place, and not a long term option. England have shown the Barritt Tuilagi combination is the way forward, Barritts comments make it clear hes much happier with it. Flood did fine when he came on, and put out passes we havent seen Hodgson even attempt yet. They have Botha to cover the charge down role, I really dont see what he would add to the matchday squad and Flood is a better player.
The back 3 is a problem, although that mostly seems to be Ashton and England not putting them in positions to do much. The first two games the ball rarely went past 12 ( another reason not to go back to Hodgson) in this one the Welsh midfield tackling was immense and tended to be able to get people on the ball first to slow posession down, they shut England down even when Tuilagi and Barritt were making ground. Really to utilise them England need to be a bit fancier and have more worked moves, and attack the mine in groups like they used under Smith. They have gone back to a very simple gameplan, which is understandable.
Ashton is very frustrating, clealry the most talented of the 3 yet currently so far out the game is ridiculous. Lancaster needs to address that, hopefully on the training ground and with the aid of his teammates. If not then who else comes in? Is Sharples fit?
Ideally youd avoid yet more comeplete outsiders coming into the 32 at this point. Theres enough to work on as it is without fresh faces to teach how to tie their bootlaces.
Lancasters been very lucky with his injuries so far, only Hodgson and thats allowed him and easier choice to get the right centers and bring Flood back.

The Scott Williams try: ok, 'lucky' is a word that's going to irritate a Welshman, but it wasn't exactly a carefully crafted unlocking of a defence was it?! And it's certainly the type of try that is a complete sickener to concede - the type where you'd stand under the posts and tell your team "heads-up lads: that was a 'nothing' try."

All credit to the guy for doing everything right to score it - strong rip, good kick, nippy chase and solid take - but in my mind it's in the same vein as a charge-down try (with perhaps just a bit more skill applied)...it is what it is, and whilst I don't think England fans should be cursing their bad luck, they're certainly entitled to be gutted that we went from an even scoreboard, in possession with our lock carrying it up to the halfway line one second, to having effectively lost the match 5 seconds later! Particularly in the context of a game in which both defences had - until then - stoically refused to be breached by all the inventiveness and power that the opposition could throw at them. International rugby matches are frequently decided on such incidents, and as an Englishman I'll certainly take those charge-down tries vs Scotland and Italy! But can any Welshman actually tell me that you wouldn't be sickened to lose a close-fought game in such a way?

Adam - it was a great piece of skill and vision - you are either still hurting or have never played rugby

RubyGuby, looks like a WUM comment to me. You didn't answer my question, plus you ignored the fact that I already praised Williams for seizing on the opportunity.

"but it wasn't exactly a carefully crafted unlocking of a defence was it"

I cannot disagree more with this statment, from start to finish that try was class in my eyes.

Adam I get your point but it shouldnt be called lucky. It should be aclled a great moment of individual skill.
Most of what are called the greatest tries in history are that. Take Ashotons one against Aus for example, hardly something straight off the coaches play book was it. Just great opportunism and execution.
Williams has developed those skills, and he used them at the right time.

As you say much like Hodgson and the charge dowsn ( although it appears that is a set defensive play of Englands with Botha now taking on the role). Theres a nbit more luck involved in those coming off though.

Yes Wales didnt unlock Englands defense with their general play. But England havent done that in 3 games, 2 against weak opposition, under Lancaster. Its pretty poor even if they did come very close on a couple of occassions.

The Scott Williams try: ok, 'lucky' is a word that's going to irritate a Welshman, but it wasn't exactly a carefully crafted unlocking of a defence was it?! - If that wasn't a clever way to unlock a tight defence I don't know what is.


That was a 'nothing' try." - I'll leave that one to an english fan to explain to you

it's in the same vein as a charge-down try - (i) rip from powerful forward, 60 yards out (ii) vision to look up and see defence up tight (iii) skill to execute a perfect chip through (iv) speed to beat everyone to the touch down versus (i) chargedown - you for real mate or what

Yes I'd be gutted if it happened against, but it was a great piece of individual skill


Can any Welshman actually tell me that you wouldn't be sickened to lose a close-fought game in such a way? - Every welshman would tell you they would be sick as a parrott to lose to any try, however in time we all have to accept that it was a great bit of opportunism, very much in fact in the similar veing as Jason Robinson used to score his trys.

Give it time and you might see it otherwise although I think you are better off asking for some english views as I'm sure you will perceive them in a more balanced light which may be catharctic for you at this time.

For the record, i have also said that i dont believe that Hodgsons chargedown trys were lucky either (with the exception of the bounce) and feel that they were both excellent pieces of skill.

Also for the record, I don't think the Williams try was lucky, and thought I'd made this clear.

My point was that - in terms of how England fans and players might feel about it - there is a difference between a moment of individual skill and an overall period of dominance. Not saying that it is less deserved or anything like that - it's all part of the game - just that it is slightly different. In some ways it is more gutting to lose a game in that way. But in other ways, the try itself is not going to cause England to go completely back to the drawing board - it was a 'nothing' try in the sense that it came out of nothing.....opportunistic as opposed to the result of overall dominance. It's a 'so near and yet so far' thing....the agonising knowledge that as underdogs we stood toe-to-toe with an excellent Welsh team for 70-odd minutes - who were perhaps expected to score tries all over the place with their powerful strike runners - only to be undone late-on by a moment of individual skill.

To reiterate: I'm not trying to offend any Welshmen here, I'm simply saying that whilst I don't agree that the try was lucky, I sympathise with my fellow Englishmen who found it a particularly cruel kick in the balls to take. And in fairness, you can't argue with that, because that's how I felt about the situation.

I understand what you are trying to say now Adam. Fair dues

Right,

It didnt come about because of defensive weakness on the part of England. Like Italys try form an interception would make you worry more about Fodens decision making than it would about Englands defense, and their try from the kick through make you worry more about his ability to field a ball than Englands defensive system.
The trys England have had scored against them so far have copme about because of individual errors and a great moment of skill from the opposition. Not because their defensive system is broken.

That could be taken as a positive. Tempered by the exact same being said about their attack, their own tries have come about through moments of skill and luck taking adavnatge of the oppositions laspes., not through any attacking set play although both Strettle and Tuilagi showed they have the potential to do that...just like North came stupidly close to unlocking England.

PSW - agree completely with that...you put it better than me.

Do you lay the blame for the relative ineffectiveness of England's attack as a whole at the door of any of the individuals, or do you see it more as a work in progress in terms of the attacking structures that Lancaster is working towards?

Personally, I would like to see both Flood and Brown used for what they offer to an attack overall, but do think that as a unit it's as much about the general need to mix it up a bit and play with a bit more complexity. I would also like to see Simpson come onto the bench to offer the sort of running threat from 9 that Youngs ought to offer but currently isn't.

Adam,

Depending how negative I want to be I flip flop between wanting to blame Lancaster for being a schoolteacher with little idea what hes doing, and saying hes set on a gradual path of evolving the team. ratehr than going straight in we can see progress through from a side with no attacking ambition at all. The first games contrary to what had been said were about getting a result and avoiding the team being a complete mess. The Wales game was about showing more adventure but still keeping it simple. Hopefully we'll start to see a bit more comeplxity come into teh play over the next two.
Having Hodgson Farrell Barrit in the first two games made that fairly inevitable anayway.
In theory Youngs (or Care) and Flood would offer more varied threats and a bit more adventurism form the half backs, but one is well out of sorts and the I cant see Flood replacing Farrell whilst hes performing and developing and the team going forards. Ive bought this up before though, Englands half backs have not been running the ball...regardless of whos on the field. Thats causing problems for Barritt and Tuilagi to find space. Like you say Simpson is another player who has the running instinct and ability, but would he be allowed to use it? Is it instruction or is it the players choosing not to? I dont know.

Who is actually the backs coach or attack coach?

Just getting back on track, correct me if i am wrong but was'nt one Daniel Carter as 12 before being made into a 10 just like what they are attempting to do with Farrell?

Yes, I personally think the criticism of farrel is unfair, I agree he isn't the finished article yet, and there shouldn't be too much hype yet.

The England media will always be looking for the next Wilkinsonesque hype, that is what they do. In general the fans seem to be more in tune with reality and that is a good thing.

I think that the guy did really well on his first international start at 10, so well in fact that i feel that he should start ahead of Flood next test.

My only concern was in him going off early due to cramp...

eirebilly wrote:I think that the guy did really well on his first international start at 10, so well in fact that i feel that he should start ahead of Flood next test.

My only concern was in him going off early due to cramp...

surely not that time of the month?

We could always play Flood at 12 to help him out...

It is an option yappy but i would not be too keen on breaking up the Barritt Tuilagi centre partnership myself.

Haha I guess that was a bit of a joke aboyut Flood at 12 Billy

I do fined it funny though that people spent so much time slagging Johnson for picking Flood at 12 ( despite having years of international experience in that position) but thought Lancaster was a genius for picking Farrell who'd only played a handfull of club games at 10 or 12 and neither position recently.
I thought although he executed his skills well he crippled England with his lack of running at 12. Flood offers mor ethan that but playing either there would be a retrograde step for England. Barrit Tuilagi looks like one of the functional units in the team, and both have played more than well enough to justify staying in the side.

Lancaster isnt going make any changes for the next game, we can already see that from the players he released back to the clubs .

To me Peter, it still comes down to Farrell v Flood for the 10 position. I cant see any other positions up for debate in the England team that was named to play Wales to be honest.

Yeah Billy those are obviously the two candiates at the moment. But Flood has been sent back to his club, and Farrell has been retained. That signals Farrell is being rested abd required to start ( as is every other memeber of the starting 15 from last weekend except Morgan who has to be released) and Flood being sent back as a courtesy/to get more gametime.

If Farrell keeps doing what of asked of him and the side stays competitive then Lancaster wont swap him for Flood or the golden goose.

We'll see Farrell start and Flood come off the bench again, the extra game time can only be a good thing for Flood and Youngs, it would have been interesting to have seen Farrell go back and play 10 for Saracens this weekend though (injury permitting).

I thought Flood had a very positive influence when he came on, even though he was hampered by Youngs passing. Even when he is average for Tigers Flood seems a player who can step up in the England Jersey.

I think the France and Ireland games will define exactly where these players and the team in general is - 2 defeats and its a poor season - A win v Ireland and it's a good season where a new template has been established and there's something to build on. We will have to wait and see

Sorry for introducing the word 'lucky' earlier on with regard to the Wales try - at least Sam understood what I actually meant, that it was great skill to rip the ball and go for the line, but on another day the bounce of the ball on the kick through could have favoured us rather than Wales, and the cover defence might have snuffed out the threat. On such margins are tight games decided.

Following up Adam and PSW's discussions of England's so far fairly toothless attack, I think primarily it has been that they were forced to go back to very basic in the Scotland game (in part because of the players unavailable). Since then we've seen improvements, and the introduction of Tuillagi and Morgan in particular for the Wales game gave a lot more go-forward, even if mostly by the simple tactic of powering through contact rather than expansive moves getting us round the defence or through gaps that we've worked for.

Assuming everyone comes back fit, I can see us going into the France game with maybe only one change (Lawes for Botha) - certainly think Farrell showed enough promise at 10 to deserve another go, while Flood still looked a little rusty to me. In the longer term, I reckon Flood may be the better all round player, and is better able to link with the likes of Ashton and Foden, but it is at least a reassurance to know that Farrell is good enough to cover 10 at Test level.

This may sound weird so bare with me

To me, England approached the first two matches as 'Not lose' matches. Only after those two victories did they start to think that they could actually win and against Wales they played much better rugby. They approached the game with a hugh element of caution but also with some intent to stretch Wales.

I thought that Having Farrell in the 10 was erring on the side of defensive caution but was also a bold gamble in the fact that he seemed to be also given a free license to chance his arm.

I think the next game for England we may see a lot more attacking and i feel that they might catch France unaware.

Billy,

Id say more a " Can win without playing well" attitude, followed by " blimey we are going to have to try and score against these welsh chaps "

Also very much a case of pragmatism and realism from Lancaster based on three things:
Firstly some ofthe players he wanted were unavailable or just woudlve been too much youth and ineperience. Flood and Tuilagi meant he was forced to play a midfield that could only ever play a limited game no matter how much attacking intent he wanted. The 10-13 combination was cemented by Trinders injury.
Secondly the lack of time he had to prepare and gel and entire new team
Thirdly the conditions. Mucky weather in Scotland against ateam intent on taking heads followed by ice in Rome.

It was pretty inevitable England would be limited in those games even if his intent had been to say " well we are going to try and play the way I longe term want us to".


I cant really see how England could have approached those games any differently even if they hadnt cared about losing. They didnt have the players, the conditions or the time to play a strong attacking game.


It does make me wonder though how lucky Lancaster has bneen with the fixture order. Had it been Wales or France up first and England had gone in with aside that couldnt move the ball forwards two phases in a row and whos defence was based on the opposition dropping the ball at every opportunity they couldve been hammered.
The opinions of him and the team wouldve been very different, as would morale. They probably wouldve been forced to make more dramatic changes for the next game, say that had been another tough fixture its likley that they wouldnt have improved any more noticeably and have taken another hammering. And England always lose to Ireland.

Imagine going to Scotland with and 0-3 record.

For building the team Lancaster got very lucky with the fixtures.

I definitely wouldn't bring in Lawes for Botha. Botha has been a standout performer of the games so far and - whilst he may lack a bit of quality at the very top level - his all round game is vital for giving England any kind of platform against what will be a very well-drilled French pack. Lawes, for me, is a touch overrated at the moment. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy and think he will become a top international, but the only part of his game that is consistently excellent is his defence. Other than that, I feel he's caught between 2 types of player whilst being neither: he's built like a lineout forward but has failed to kick-on and really take charge of that set piece; and he plays like an 'enforcer' but (whilst, as I said, his defence is excellent and he is very aggressive in the tackle area) he's too willowy to make an impact with his ball carrying at the top level.

You are sort of saying what i mean Peter, SL had no other choice due to injuries so had to approach the first two matches with a 'not lose' attitude.

Personally i fee that SL has done a very good job so far, he has put the primadonna's in their place and seems to have built a very good unity in the England squad.

He has mirrored nearly all what MJ said he would do but actually put them into place. He deserves alot of credit for that in my book.

On Lawes, as i have said many times before, he is a great player but as big a liability as England have.

Correctly or not, he has a history of foul play and commands a lot of attention from refs and will be penalised a lot earlier than most other players committing similar offences.

"I cant really see how England could have approached those games any differently even if they hadnt cared about losing. They didnt have the players, the conditions or the time to play a strong attacking game."

Not to mention the possession. We barely had the ball in the Scotland game, and I think we were on the wrong end of some fairly one-sided possession stats in Rome. The standout for me was not the lack of ability to put width on the game on the one or two occassions that we had chance, but our lack of ability to get and retain possession: less to do with attacking systems or ambition, and more to do with a forward pack that was tested at best and bested at worst! England managed to get a platform at times in the Wales game, but at other times we were undone and made to look chaotic, both at the scrum and at the breakdown. This would be my primary concern, especially with France and Ireland coming up, both of whom outmuscle England up front on paper.

eirebilly wrote: he has put the primadonna's in their place

Others would say he may regret ditching Care, has failed to deal with Youngs' depression, doesnt have a clue how to get the best from Hartley Ashton Foden and Lawes, and has his best FH on the bench.

But that may be a touch harsh

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

eirebilly wrote: he has put the primadonna's in their place

Others would say he may regret ditching Care, has failed to deal with Youngs' depression, doesnt have a clue how to get the best from Hartley Ashton Foden and Lawes, and has his best FH on the bench.

But that may be a touch harsh

oooh you love to stir the pot dont you

PSW, anyone would think that you are deeply cynical about the abilities of Stuart Lancaster

By the way, I didn't know that Ben Youngs was suffering from depression. Do you know anything more about this?

Like Billy says Im just offering a "counter perspective"

The Youngs comment ...not based on anything actual. Just a way of distilling that he really hasnt looked happy since the Ireland game last year, and his form has detoriated with it.
He isnt enjoying his rugby, doubly so in an England shirt. It does remind me of sportsmen who have suffered depression in the past, but I was more using the term as descriptive rather than stating he actually has clinical depression.
He needs either a hug or a kick up the backside. Knowing which is the sign of a good man manager. Some players benefit form being dropped, others it makes the situation worse. I cant beleive hes suddenly just forgotten how to play rugby, or that he doesnt care ( quite obvious from his reaction to getting subbed agaisnt Italy) . Maybe hes carrying an injury still, Cockerill had suggested he came back from the world cup unfit, but there appears to be a mental block as well.
He used to look relaxed and happy in an England shirt.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

eirebilly wrote: he has put the primadonna's in their place

1) Others would say he may regret ditching Care, 2) has failed to deal with Youngs' depression, 3) doesnt have a clue how to get the best from Hartley Ashton Foden and Lawes, and 4) has his best FH on the bench.

But that may be a touch harsh

1) May regret..but it needed to be done...the indiscipline has been appalling...
2) This was spiralling with Johno aswell. He has given him a chance then made the right call to replace him. He may yet return him to the Tigers permanently
3) Hartley...has anyone got the best of him internationally. Ashton, Foden have been restricted with Englands tactics...but there was much better width against Wales...so they should be seeing more chances v France. Lawes...well he hasnt played under Lancaster yet..bar 20 mins so ???
4) Flood has been injured, and Johnny retired...so he's been allowed to look elsewhere. He has rightly resisted rushing Flood back...Farrell has impressed. He has a difficult decision now...

I think it's clear that he's a player who's affected by his emotions. It will be interesting to see how Cockers and Lancaster approach trying to get him back to his best....as you say, the mental thing could be a direct result of physically not being right - who knows.

After the Italy game I was firmly in the camp of 'drop him: it'll do him good'....based not least on his impact from the bench in the Argentina game at the world cup (although his presence on the bench in the first place wasn't the result of his being dropped in that instance). But it has seemed to affect him and, perhaps, slipped him deeper into a funk. I read an interview with Youngs after the Italy game when Dickson was getting all the praise and he was extremely defensive about his approach to the game, saying things like [paraphrase] "I could play like him if I wanted to". Certainly not the reaction of a confident man. And I think he showed this insecurity on the pitch vs Wales - he rushed a few decisions (maybe mindful of criticism around how quickly he gets the ball away) and generally looked unhappy.

The thing is, do you keep him in the squad and try to nurture his confidence back in the England shirt? Or do you take the decision that makes sense in the short term and drop him from the squad in favour of Simpson who I have no doubt would make an impact?

...tricky.

Also, devils advocate or not, I don't think you can criticise Lancaster for dropping Care: it would have been suicide not to in light of events in NZ and the scrutiny of player behaviour. And whilst you could make a case about him failing to get the best out of Ashton and Foden, I think Hartley has been pretty solid verging on good, and Lawes is only just back from injury!!

Whikle I found it ironic he got in Hugh Morris to talk to the players, his ECB were quite happy to take the drink driver Swann on tour this winter.
Hes been critisized by the New Zealand camp for doing it, they handled similar situatuions very differently.

But yeah its the context of the Care thing. His own fault hes in the mess, but to some extent hes become the scapegoat for a wider problem. With a new squad as well its very much a "first day of the new term" lay down a marker time.

Johnson was the same in ditching Brown and Ojo after the NZ tour antics, even when that knocked him down to something like his 5th choice fullback.

There's a lot of ifs buts and maybes about some of the comments above re SLs fortunate opening fixtures and I'll add just one more. His player selection might well have been very different had we been facing any of the other 3 nations in the opening rounds and we wouldn't have seen so many inexperienced players on the pitch. But, we are where we are and I applaud SL for what he's sought to do. Psychologically he has swept the room clean, he's taken a necessary stand on discipline and he's put his faith in young talent all of which was absolutely necessary after the turgid years of same old same old.

I think his biggest challenge now is managing player expectations at selection time. With the benefit of hindsight he should have left Youngs with his club for the first 2 fixtures and only brought him back into the fold if he showed signs of shaking off the blues.

Farrel has put in a very acceptable debut performance at 10 and must have some reasonable expectation of holding the position for the next test with Flood on the bench.

There's a lot about Lawes I don't like and doesn't deserve the starting slot for sure so bench for him as far as I'm concerned.

Strettle hasn't done anything wrong in my book and the pattern of play hasn't generated opportunities for Ashton to feed off and I would leave them in.

Foden is a bit off the boil as well but Brown hasn't had enough time on the pitch for me to make the call. I do think he miss timed his pass to Strettle, 2 or 3 paces too early, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

Centres need leaving alone, that's a partnership that could prove very effective. The whole back line is not far away from being pretty good, a bit more brain to add to the muscle.

Right through the team they are few yards off the pace getting to the tackle, breakdowns generally and not being on the shoulder of players breaking the line. I happen to think these are things that they can put right and they will have to against France and Ireland. I am optimistic that they could come away from one of those games with a win but will see the tournament in a positive light if they give a good enough account of themselves whilst losing. 3 games isn't enough to judge SL on but I am right behind him at this stage.

Anyone think Webber could get the nod in either of the next 2 games?

Youngs looks to be in a similar place to where Mike Phillips was last season pre-world cup warm-ups when he'd been benched permenantly by the ospreys and he couldnt buy a half-decent game anywhere. A lot of rumours were around that he'd taken to alcohol after his split with Duffy had hit him hard (hence all of the drunken indiscipline and stories of nights out in cardiff etc). He went to Poland with the welsh squad and came back chomping at the bit and had an excellant world cup with a smile on his face. Its no coincidence that the camp in Poland was a dry one.

Youngs looks to be stuck in the same sort of rut Phillips was, someone needs to get hold of him and help the lad sort it out, hes a young guy and throwing him into international tests with such pressure on his shoulders isnt helping, clearly.

Care was an idiot, someone needed to have an example made of them discipline-wise for England after the world cup.

Lancasters done a good job so far, but as PSW's said, so far his record reads....

Scotland vs England - Win
Italy vs England - Win
England vs Wales - loss

Tough, tough games against Ireland and France to come, realisitcally, winning 1 of those will be a major acheivement.