Flood, Along With Others Released Back To His Club

First topic message reminder :

According to the Beeb.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/17277936

Guess that means Hodgson is classed by SL as the better bench option.

Triangulation wrote: Flood and Youngs played well but neither made an unanswerable case for recall.

They dont need a recall, they awere in the side already. Its Hodgson whos been given two recalls by Lancaster now, the first we assumed because of injury to Flood...but apparently hes actually first choice.

yappysnap wrote:Can not understand this.

As others have said it looks like we'll be trying to strangle France and keep it tight, maybe win by a kick, almost like Saracens game plan...

Can't see it working though as the players we have don't seem to suit the game plan and it's far more difficult to bully teams for the full 80 at international level.

What happnes if we're 8 points down with 20 minutes left? Can't see Hodgeson getting us those points to win the game unless he's made a pact with the devil to get another charge down.

We'll need a superhuman pack effort this weekend as again I can't see the backs doing too much.

It appears the plan is to lose by as small a margin as possible and get the media headlines discussing Englands heroic battling display.




Apparently Im still feeling negative, I just feel England should aspire to more than 4th place.

BUt even guys at top level fitness...marathon runners, the fittest footballs, RL guys get cramp...

Harsh to point at this for Farrells fitness being poor.

Anyway...overall I think Lancaster is doing farily well....but not brilliant.

Pros - He has given players vital experience, and he has probably tried to keep some of the clubs happy aswell...

Cons - The style is a bit too defensive based...(though hopefully Wales showed signs of moving on...and he also has made the odd selection puzzle as his predecessor did....

Why does the actual selection process seem to be the most dificult for people....

I wonder what debate we'll be having this time next year when George Ford will be nudging twenty..

That would depend entirely on whether he is first or second choice at Tigers. If he's first choice then he should be in contention, if he's not then Saxons should be the highest representation he should be considered for, unless his Dad's back on the coaching panel (sorry couldn't resist).

As others have said it looks like we'll be trying to strangle France and keep it tight, maybe win by a kick, almost like Saracens game plan...

That's a good game plan if you can guarentee parityish at the set pieces and safely disrupt the opposition breakdown. I don't think we'll be able to do either. The French scrum is very good and Mas vs Corbs will not be pleasent, especially with Hartley out of form. The lineout will be close but the French have two excellent set piece hookers and as many good jumpers as we do, it will not be straight forward. The breakdown where we lost to Scotland, France won and got themselves quick ball. They even managed to get some decent ball against an Irish side that's favourite position seemed to be offside.

Personally I'd have gone for it, England get an early couple of tries and the French heads will drop. Bring Farrell on in the second half and have him do his kicking thing to keep the French pinned back (I'd also have Brown in there for that cannon of a left boot). The French aren't the best at the tactical kicking game.

I think Flood is very hard done by. It seems to take very little for people to forget that he's been central to England playing their best attacking rugby since 2003 in recent years. We struggled to move on from Wilkinson for ages, then we gave Flood a chance and things got massively better... One iffy performance behing a marmalised pack in Dublin and Flood's out of favour for the WC... at which point in England look toothless in attack again.

Now he's out of favour again for no real reason I can see and England are again looking toothless in attack. I can see why you'd want to have Farrell in at 10, but not having Flood on the bench is just silly IMO. He is our best fly half and has proved that enough times.

Youngs deserves to lose his place in the team and maybe on the bench too – his form has been very dodgy for a while now. Flood on the other hand has not really done much wrong.

Sam let's be honest. Flood was average against Saracens. He bottled the drop goal in the dying minutes. It was up to Murphy to save the day.

It's good that Lancaster has a nice selection headache. You could argue either way for either Hodgson and Flood.

Either Hodgson or Flood suit me. Both I think showed good form in their last game.

I can understand why Lancaster picked Hodgson but can understand why you some of you wanted Flood. Especially Leicester fans who never like to see the boot on the other foot!

Sam let's be honest. Flood was average against Saracens. He bottled the
drop goal in the dying minutes. It was up to Murphy to save the day.

He obviously did not do that if you watch the game! Why are people still saying this?

Played fine when he came on for England (instrumental in two of their best plays)

PSW - I'm slightly late to this but I am genuinely interested to know what you think these two best plays were that Flood was instrumental in? I certainly believe that Flood is currently the best alround option at 10 in England - BUT I don't think he has shown enough yet to warrant a place. In the Wales match, I can only rememeber Flood seemingly taking the ball deep at a standstill every time - I assume he was involved in the built up to the Strettle non-try? I just can't remember seeing him do anything, and so from what I can remember of the match, I think Flood needs more game time before he is ready for a test match against France.

It has previously been general public opinion that Hodgson is the best fly half in the country at getting a back line moving - he couldn't kick, tackle and seemed to be lacking the mental capacity to step up at international level. now he is playing at Saracens it is assumed he is only capable of playing to a kick and chase game plan. IMHO the reason we didn't get the best out of him in the first two 6N matches was the slow ball being received from Youngs - who at the weekend looked good behind a pack so dominant he was afforded the luxury or being able to crab across the pitch before passing. Get him quick ball, from Dickson, with Tuilagi and Barrett running lines for him to hit... IMHO this is the most attacking back line we can currently put out. More than likely going to be Farrell starting though

I just feel England should aspire to more than 4th place.

Totally agree with that. I was resigned to the idea we might come out of this with just 2 wins and comfortable with it but expected to see some ambition and a glimpse of a new approach to the way we play even if we lost. After 3 games I am worried that we are seeing a halfway house situation where we've blooded some youth and been a little impressed but then a continuation of hedging bets so as not to lose too heavily, i.e. enforced mediocrity. This should have been the time to go for it and the hell with the consequences but I fear SL has his eye on the top job and it's holding things back.

Eustace H Plimsoll wrote:

Sam let's be honest. Flood was average against Saracens. He bottled the
drop goal in the dying minutes. It was up to Murphy to save the day.

He obviously did not do that if you watch the game! Why are people still saying this?

I actually went to the game live unlike most of my fellow armchair pundits. I was puzzled to why it was taking so long for Leicester to take a drop goal. In the end Murphy took it.

I suspect that Youngs' place is helped by Cares meltdown, Micky Youngs suspension, and Wigglesworths injury. The next in line is Karl Dickson, who although hes had rave reviews this year has only played 30 games at the top club level despite being 29.

By the way France have picked Bexaius and Dupuy, which shows how seriously they are taking England.

I actually went to the game live unlike most of my fellow armchair
pundits. I was puzzled to why it was taking so long for Leicester to
take a drop goal. In the end Murphy took it.

Yes, Murphy took the DG, but before that Flood could be clearly seen standing in the pocket, waving his arms and shouting for the ball but Grindal ignored him. When he did finally get it he was being charged down so he took it back up. Then Murphy, our best DG exponent called for the ball and slotted it. Flood did nothing wrong at all.

Care is being an ar**hole and he needs to sort himself out, shame really as he could have been figuring strongly in the present setup working with his old coach SL.

Can't figure the Beauxis selection, he looked a bit out of shape and lazy to me but Parra and Trinh Duc are on the bench to get things going again. Can't see our pack coming out of this in one piece, the French are going to be a real handful for them.

If England can't get anything going in attack this is going to be a really bad day at the office.

beshocked wrote:Sam let's be honest. Flood was average against Saracens. He bottled the drop goal in the dying minutes. It was up to Murphy to save the day.

I swear, if anyone states this lie again I will employ LulzSec (or whatever they are called) to hack the perpatrators account and remove all access to rugby bulletin boards.

I can only assume you were not at VR that day beshocked or you would have seen and heard flood screaming for Grindal to give him the ball on several occasions. at the end Tigers had 3 men in teh pocket to disrupt the (offside) Sarries chasers.

Well LondonTiger I did say I was at the game.

To be honest I couldn't care less whether Flood was shouting like a blue *rsed fly for the ball. I was more focussed on my own side hoping someone would do their utmost to prevent the attempt.

The reality is that it was Murphy who kicked the drop goal after numerous phases when you would have expected someone else (notably the fly half to step up to kick it).

Eustace you say that Flood pulled out of a drop goal attempt.

Maybe bottled is being overly harsh on Flood. It is more accurate to say that he failed to have an attempt to kick the drop goal, leaving it to his full back to deal the decisive blow. Interpret it as you want. I interpret it as advocating responsibility.

That DG issue, Flood was pretty shallow for an internationally recognised FH, and he had to wait for the chance, then when he did he did make the right call by taking it back up... But in my opinion did he want a 2nd bite at the cherry?

Did he hell, he sat in the pocket because he had to, didn't motion for the ball at all, and stayed as quiet as he could, when Murphy saw this and stepped up he looked at him and got out of the pocket as fast as he could!

How can he be passing the responsibility when he wanted the ball, he asked for the ball and when the final kick did go over he was 5ms to Murphy's right still offering the option.

The one time Grindal chose to pass it, he threw it high and wide to Flood's left. With Sarries chase being faster than Usain Bolt - or offside - any attempt to get that ball back down would have been charged down. He was sensible and recycled it.

Flood is not every ones cup of tea. I accept that. He is not the god that is JW and is unable to kick drop goals off the wrong foot. I accept that. He does use too much fake tan. I accept that.

However he has never shirked his responsibilities for Tiger's. Not once.

Tell you what lets worry about this when England are down by one with 79 minutes to go , because lets be frank...it will be a flipping miracle if this becomes an issue this weekend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENQ2N2cyN34

Tiger, pause this at 1.36 and you will clearly see not only has Flood left the pocket, I think he's halfway to the changing room.

A good FH would be in the pocket with a 2nd option to atract runners 5m to his right, I can clearly see 10m in all directions and Flood is nowhere to be seen....

I understand you might like the guy but pics don't lie!

Maybe bottled is being overly harsh on Flood. It is more accurate to say
that he failed to have an attempt to kick the drop goal, leaving it to
his full back to deal the decisive blow. Interpret it as you want. I
interpret it as advocating responsibility.

You must not rate Nick Evans then. Look at his repeated avoidance of responsibility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3StR2BNTGI

Did he hell, he sat in the pocket because he had to, didn't motion for
the ball at all, and stayed as quiet as he could, when Murphy saw this
and stepped up he looked at him and got out of the pocket as fast as he
could!

That simply isn't true. If you can be bothered and can find the clip – watch it again. There's no way you can honestly claim Flood "didn't motion for
the ball at all, and stayed as quiet as he could"

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Re: Flood, Along With Others Released Back To His Club

by thebluesmancometh Today at 12:17


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENQ2N2cyN34

Tiger,
pause this at 1.36 and you will clearly see not only has Flood left the
pocket, I think he's halfway to the changing room.

A good FH
would be in the pocket with a 2nd option to atract runners 5m to his
right, I can clearly see 10m in all directions and Flood is nowhere to
be seen....

I understand you might like the guy but pics don't lie!

By halfway to the changing room, you mean standing behind and to the right of Murphy, the captain and excellent DG exponent, who has called to take the DG.

Eustace mate, don't play the HERSH game that when you've been beaten misquote the person and try to win a different argument.

First up he did nothing wrong, called for the ball and took it up as he wouldn't have got it away, 2nd bite is a total different story!!

LondonTiger it's all about interpretation. Maybe you are correct. Maybe it was the nefarious and dastardly Grindal who stopped Flood from having the opportunity to slot a glorious drop goal. Maybe it was the lightening Sarries chase who flirt with offside and practice chargedowns every day for two hours preventing Flood from glory.

Ifs,buts and maybes.

I was also trying to deconstruct the myth that Flood is vastly superior to Hodgson.

He's a good player who can call himself unlucky but Hodgson and Farrell (irrespective of club bias) have fairly decent arguments to warrant being in the England side vs France.

As I said before I would not have minded at all having Flood on the bench. There's even an argument for him starting. I can see why Lancaster would pick Hodgson instead. Hodgson has afterall helped Lancaster hugely with those two chargedowns!

PSW why would it be a miracle? I am confident that England can beat France.

you mean 10m to the right and 10m behind, offering no DG threat at all, helping Murphy by hiding behind him. If he wanted the ball he would've been 10m shallower and offering himself, look at his hands mate, down by his sides, he has given up any responsibility, and has no intention of being caught out by the SH and played the ball by accident!!!

As I said he did nothing wrong first up, but he does just get out of daddies way at the second attempt!

Isnt a bit ridiculous to start claiming Flood ducks responsibility when Hodgson relies on Farrell to take ALL the kicks for him?

formerly known as Sam wrote:

I don't you if your trying to deliberately make a point about the rubbish regarding "Leicester Mafia" when Johnson was in or not.

I was.

I am glad.

But you sound just as crazy and bitter as Beshocked did before the World Cup. Maybe it's deliberate to make a point (like with Seabiscuit). You're even beginning to approach MikeyPhil levels..

Now, now no need to throw insults, MikeyPhil indeed.

I did take that too far. MikeyPhil was a low blow

I was disagreeing with the rhetoric that Flood is 'out of form' which is rubbish, he played well if not great against Sarries, played very well off the bench against Wales and was superb at the weekend against Gloucester. He's had 4 games since his injury (including two full ones) he is back to fitness and form and he has been dropped because the coaching staff want to go with Farrell and Hodgson and for no other reason.

Now if Lancaster was dropping players for lacking fitness and form then Ben Youngs should be back at Tigers. His performance at the weekend was better but not polished yet he maintains his place.

And I did agree with most of your points and I would have been happy for Flood in the 22. But I'm also not bothered by Hodgson being on the bench either. Just got annoyed by the "Sarries bias" in same way I got annoyed with the "Leicester bias" stuff. I will now get off my high-horse.

Maybe it was the nefarious and dastardly Grindal who stopped Flood from having the opportunity to slot a glorious drop goal.

Maybe, he is Poopie

I was sat in the stand watching the game. I saw and heard what I saw.

As to whether I like Flood - well I actually hope that by the end of 2012/13 season that Ford is ahead of him at Tigers. Too often I think Flood has pre-determined how he will play a game and does not react to what is in front of hime. He has a great tactical kicking game - when that is his gameplan (see last seasons semi vs Saints or last week v Glaws).

People allow their pre-conceptions to over-rule what they are seeing on the pitch. I spent most of my time defending Charlie Hodgson a few weeks ago - and personally I feel that he is far more likely to get England running the ball well than Farrell.

It is Stuart Lancaster's call and he has decided to drop Flood. If Hodgson starts against France - and he was Lancaster's first choice at the start of the tournament, then his decision makes sense (I feel it is wrong but it makes sense). If hodgson is on the bench, then for me it makes no sense at all.

LT,

If Flood had been fit would CH have been Lancasters first choice at the start? I think most people wouldve WTF'ed if he had been

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Isnt a bit ridiculous to start claiming Flood ducks responsibility when Hodgson relies on Farrell to take ALL the kicks for him?

Yes because of course Farrell took all the kicks in the recent Saracens game vs Northampton.

Hodgson was MOM kicking 6/6. When you have a ludicrous amount of place kickers at one club when all fit then it doesn't really matter. Goode kicks,Hodgson kicks,Farrell kicks, Wyles is now first choice kicker for USA and Wigglesworth when fit can place kick too.

I think Barritt even used to kick for the Sharks. Might be wrong though. I have seen him slot a drop goal though.

London

Sadly mate, it has been proven that even the best of us can accurately recall less than 40% of what we see live at sporting events.

Of what we see, 50% can be missed due to the lack of video replays, statiticians helping comentators pick things out.

And also every defining moment that changes a game 100% of us see a home team bias!

So I believe you saw what you belive you saw, I am just stating I have proved you are wrong with video evidence.

Sorry

Eustace mate, don't play the HERSH game that when you've been beaten misquote the person and try to win a different argument.

First
up he did nothing wrong, called for the ball and took it up as he
wouldn't have got it away, 2nd bite is a total different story!!

Fair enough, didn't see that you were talking about his second attempt there.

you mean 10m to the right and 10m behind, offering no DG threat at all,
helping Murphy by hiding behind him. If he wanted the ball he would've
been 10m shallower and offering himself, look at his hands mate, down by
his sides, he has given up any responsibility, and has no intention of
being caught out by the SH and played the ball by accident!!!

As I said he did nothing wrong first up, but he does just get out of daddies way at the second attempt!

This is getting a little silly now but

1) He obviously is not 10m behind and to the right of Murphy. 5m would be closer estimate probably. Not that it really matters – he's still offering an option if necessary but the captain called for and took the DG – all fine.

2) The shot only cuts to Flood after Murphy's been passed the ball so I'm not sure how you can draw any conclusions about his body language in the run-up to the pass.

Honestly this whole thing is not that important – it just irks me to see people repeating Stuart Barnes's nonsense again and again despite the evidence to the contrary.

Frankly I'll be happy as long as Farrell starts at 10 or benches. No Barritt at 13 please, no Farrell starting at 12

ChequeredJersey wrote:Frankly I'll be happy as long as Farrell starts at 10 or benches. No Barritt at 13 please, no Farrell starting at 12

+1

Barritt Tuilagi is the partnership to persist with. They could be very good

beshocked wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Isnt a bit ridiculous to start claiming Flood ducks responsibility when Hodgson relies on Farrell to take ALL the kicks for him?

Yes because of course Farrell took all the kicks in the recent Saracens game vs Northampton.

Hodgson was MOM kicking 6/6. When you have a ludicrous amount of place kickers at one club when all fit then it doesn't really matter. Goode kicks,Hodgson kicks,Farrell kicks, Wyles is now first choice kicker for USA and Wigglesworth when fit can place kick too.

I think Barritt even used to kick for the Sharks. Might be wrong though. I have seen him slot a drop goal though.

Right the game in which Farrell wasnt there to kick for him.

You understand that Murphy is Tigers drop goal specialist? And he was playing in the game, so he took the DG. The point was that if youre going to slate Flood for not being in psoition to take a DG that wasnt his respoisnbility to take then how can you not slate CH for not running up and taking Farrells kicks for him?

You may also note that Flood has kicked DGs for England.

bluestonevedder wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Frankly I'll be happy as long as Farrell starts at 10 or benches. No Barritt at 13 please, no Farrell starting at 12

+1

Barritt Tuilagi is the partnership to persist with. They could be very good

+1 too.

beshocked wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Frankly I'll be happy as long as Farrell starts at 10 or benches. No Barritt at 13 please, no Farrell starting at 12

+1

Barritt Tuilagi is the partnership to persist with. They could be very good

+1 too.

Yeah thats an assumption we are all starting from!

I think everyones happy with the first 15 as is, its more the direction of the team and those most in contention to get back into the side if things arent working out plus the available " plan B" from the bench thats causing concern.

Barritt Tuilagi is the partnership to persist with. They could be very good

One thing everybody can agree on.

Yes because of course Farrell took all the kicks in the recent Saracens game vs Northampton.

Hodgson was MOM kicking 6/6.

In a game bereft of attacking play, style or to be honest substance. Was a dire game where Hodgson was given the MOM by default (is team won, no one stood out). Really not a game to bring up if you are advocating him coming into the England team.

It isn't that important you are right.

PS not sure what Barnes said about it, in my view it's a brave Murphy who takes control of the situation, but as an int FH Flood will rewatch that and think to himself I should've done it!

PPS being a geek I had to use the software to chack the distance...

Flood is exactly 9.4m from Murphy

Flood is 8.6m to the right of Murphy

Flood is 7.9m behind Murphys line

I AM A FULL ON GEEK!

Why are you all so happy with a Barritt Tuilagi partnership?

For me that is seriously lacking, and the back 3 are going to be largely isolated as they have been so far.

PSW

It just baffles me that Flood who as you said has done drop goals for England is not seen as first choice by Leicester to slot crucial drop goals.

When Saracens have excellent place kickers like Hodgson and Farrell it is largely irrelevant who takes the kicks.

Sam that is your interpretation fine. I thought it was a tough arm wrestle of two strong teams in horrendous conditions. The boot was always going to have an important say. I thought Hodgson did his job well. He controlled the game,kicked well - both place kicking and for territory. He made sure the efforts made by the forwards were well rewarded with him notching 6/6.

This was not a game to chuck the ball around with reckless abandon.

It was also a notable win against Saints who many rate very highly.

Why are you all so happy with a Barritt Tuilagi partnership?

For me that is seriously lacking, and the back 3 are going to be largely isolated as they have been so far.

I agree it's lacking a distributor. Still better than anything we've had for a while though.

Eustace H Plimsoll wrote:

Why are you all so happy with a Barritt Tuilagi partnership?

For me that is seriously lacking, and the back 3 are going to be largely isolated as they have been so far.

I agree it's lacking a distributor. Still better than anything we've had for a while though.

Both have been known to distribute quite well, ao maybe it's just a case of giving them a chance.

If we didn't have them who would we have...

Gettying back to the fly half debate, Leicester coach Matt O'Connor has his views on it here... http://www.espnscrum.com/six-nations-2012/rugby/story/160747.html?CMP=RSS2

Suffice to say he isn't impressed with Lancasters coaching so far and hits the nail on the head with the following; "The Australian believes that the halfbacks have been mistreated by England's interim coach Stuart Lancaster and also that the national side are not interested in creative players, just in "trying not to lose".

Stop me if i'm wrong but isn't that exactly the accusation we levelled at Martin Johnson??

thebluesmancometh wrote:Why are you all so happy with a Barritt Tuilagi partnership?

For me that is seriously lacking, and the back 3 are going to be largely isolated as they have been so far.

We disagree with you. Against Wales, Ashton got the ball 16 times. Strettle got 2 possible try-scoring opportunities. It's not a perfect partnership yet but it's much better than the other options in our EPS at the moment.

Both have been known to distribute quite well, ao maybe it's just a case of giving them a chance.

I've seen Barritt sling the odd long pass but not Tuilagi. Still, you're right, if Barritt can use his passing skills more we can afford to have a a runner/offloader at OC.

I think everyones happy with the first 15 as is, its more the direction of the team and those most in contention to get back into the side if things arent working out plus the available " plan B" from the bench thats causing concern.

I agree with this, I don't think I have the same expectations of a bench as Lancaster does. You shouldn't make changes off the bench unless they are necessary due to injury, change in game-plan or a player is obvious struggling with form on the field. The options on the bench combined with players changing position in the 15 should be able to comfortably cover every back (and if possible forward) position properly between them. Most of them should be able to offer a different approach to the starting players so that they can be used to change the tempo of the game.

None of this seems to be happening really

Amongst all the debate, this is a very wise thought:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Tell you what lets worry about this when England are down by one with 79 minutes to go , because lets be frank...it will be a flipping miracle if this becomes an issue this weekend.

Maybe not a miracle, but let's see.

Despite how England look so far, the only difference betwixt England and Wales was the one big play they converted and the one England.......err...almost converted. Nothing more.

Suffice to say he isn't impressed with Lancasters coaching so far and hits the nail on the head with the following; "The Australian believes that the halfbacks have been mistreated by England's interim coach Stuart Lancaster and also that the national side are not interested in creative players, just in "trying not to lose".

Stop me if i'm wrong but isn't that exactly the accusation we levelled at Martin Johnson??

There were claims he was to loyal and conservative at the end of his reign but some of Englands best rugby in recent years was played under Johnno last season. The game vs Aus where he through in the Youngs/Flood partnership and we won in Aus. The game against NZ at home where, although we lost, we actually played well and made NZ work for their win. Last 6N we cut open the Welsh defence and won at the MS.

Johnno's coaching pre-RWC was starting to come up good, the issues that brought his tenure to an end all came from the RWC.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Suffice to say he isn't impressed with Lancasters coaching so far and hits the nail on the head with the following; "The Australian believes that the halfbacks have been mistreated by England's interim coach Stuart Lancaster and also that the national side are not interested in creative players, just in "trying not to lose".

Stop me if i'm wrong but isn't that exactly the accusation we levelled at Martin Johnson??

There were claims he was to loyal and conservative at the end of his reign but some of Englands best rugby in recent years was played under Johnno last season. The game vs Aus where he through in the Youngs/Flood partnership and we won in Aus. The game against NZ at home where, although we lost, we actually played well and made NZ work for their win. Last 6N we cut open the Welsh defence and won at the MS.

Johnno's coaching pre-RWC was starting to come up good, the issues that brought his tenure to an end all came from the RWC.

This is all true. That's what made the fall at the RWC so awful- it had looked so good for the first time in ages and the false dawn was too painful

thebluesmancometh wrote:Why are you all so happy with a Barritt Tuilagi partnership?

For me that is seriously lacking, and the back 3 are going to be largely isolated as they have been so far.

Because if Youngs/Flood were playing.....

yappysnap wrote:

Eustace H Plimsoll wrote:

Why are you all so happy with a Barritt Tuilagi partnership?

For me that is seriously lacking, and the back 3 are going to be largely isolated as they have been so far.

I agree it's lacking a distributor. Still better than anything we've had for a while though.

Both have been known to distribute quite well, ao maybe it's just a case of giving them a chance.

If we didn't have them who would we have...

Gettying back to the fly half debate, Leicester coach Matt O'Connor has his views on it here... http://www.espnscrum.com/six-nations-2012/rugby/story/160747.html?CMP=RSS2

Suffice to say he isn't impressed with Lancasters coaching so far and hits the nail on the head with the following; "The Australian believes that the halfbacks have been mistreated by England's interim coach Stuart Lancaster and also that the national side are not interested in creative players, just in "trying not to lose".

Stop me if i'm wrong but isn't that exactly the accusation we levelled at Martin Johnson??

Well thats typical of O'Connor, just copies everything I say

This is all true. That's what made the fall at the RWC so awful- it had looked so good for the first time in ages and the false dawn was too painful.

Very much so. What worries me now is we have a better defence (which we needed) but we now have lost the attacking capabilities and set piece control which made the Johnno era a success. I just hope it doesn't take us as long to refind the attacking instincts as it did last time!

I think the other thing that needs pointing out is that England werent quite as bad at the WC as people like to make out.