still no flood???

Ok I havent agreed with some of Lancasters selections,Botha for instance, but he is getting results and the side have improved considerably, so happy to be proved wrong;but i cant understand the omission of Flood yet again, he brings the best out of Youngs and surely deserves a spot on the bench?

free,

I am guessing he is showing a bit of loyalty, Hodgson whilst not everyones cup of tea scored the tries that helped win the early games and whilst I questioned could Farrell cope with the pressure of starting at 10 and kicking he has proved me wrong.

I think it would be harsh on either of them to lose their spot for the final game, Floods time will come again.

Karl Dickson, Calum Clark, Joe Launchbury, Lee Mears, Jordan Turner-Hall, Thomas Waldrom have also rejoined their clubs.

looking forward to welcoming Mallet to the fold

Floods daddy isnt coach.

Don't agree with it but didn't expect anything else. Nothing different for Flood this week, he's no more or less match fit than he was before the France game as he didn't play for the Tigers against Bath in the LV.

Dowson is expected to be fit otherwise he would have kept Callum Clark. Will be interesting to see what he does with Strettle - would keep Sharples myself with Ashton on the right wing.

Not surprised about Flood. Obviously Lancaster is working from the standpoint of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Have to admit, I am mixed about it. Whereas I think Flood is a better bench option, I guess he thinks the least disturbance, the better at this point.

Not sure about Sharples. I guess we will see the match day 22.

At the end of the game Farrel looked like he had a shoulder injury, or atleat he looked like he was in a bit of pain. So thought Flood might have been kept in the squad.

But seeing that he is not in the squad i guess must meen Farrel will be ok.

Dont mind Sharples getting another shot,I thought Ashton showed signs of improvement playing on his customary wing aginst France,I can see the logic of bringing on Hodgson as a tactical sub and moving farell to center,but if Farell gets injured and Hodgson has to land a crucial penalty.........

It's probably just a bit late to start mixing it up again. Farrell and Hodgson deserve their places, Hodgson will be eased out after the tournament and Flood back in.

If Manu had ever passed, then Sharples was in on the outside a couple of times. I'll forgive him for that try though. Hope he gets to start against Ireland.

TycroesOsprey wrote:Floods daddy isnt coach.

iknow you are only teasing with that comment but if you put it into club context this is a very apparent factor. THe old Leicester regime have been ousted, bar the ever quieter and quieter Graham Rowntree, and the new Saracens regime are in power with Andy Farrell's input, he is the guy that this england team most reflects. I haven't a clue what Lancaster's vision of rugby is as he hasn't really coached at a decent level before this appointment.

daddies boy is doing well its his older team mate that worries me.....

Flood does not play for the Sarries, I would have him n place of Hogson who is very limited, he is the equivalent of S Jones for Wales but can't tacklle. Coaches tend to stick with who they know.

What is Flood like as a person?
Maybe he isn't a team player or isn't a positive person to have around?

I can only guess as I don't know him and I'm surprised he is still out of the squad as he can cover centre too.

It's not a "Saracens mafia" in the same way it was not a "Leicester mafia" before, Saracens are reigning champions in the Jeff and Leicester used to be, so it's not surprise that many of their players are/were in the team.

I think Flood should be in the team ahead of Hodgson, Lancaster clearly disagrees. I'll only think there is something fishy about it if Flood gets a few games under his belt and is playing really well and still doesn't get picked further down the line.

It's not as if he's picking a complete unknown ahead of Flood, Hodgson is a good fly half.

Hodgson is one of the best passers in the game and had solid games when he did start.
Flood is just back from injury & SL has stuck by his original choices not just Hodgson. Given the limited time this coaching team has had with the squad consistency of selection is paramount in my view.

SL has been head coach of England Saxons & RFU Head of Elite Player Development covering all age groups for the last 5 years.
The Saxons have been very successful during his leadership so to say he hasn't coached at a decent level is plain rubbish.

glamorganalun wrote:Flood does not play for the Sarries, I would have him n place of Hogson who is very limited, he is the equivalent of S Jones for Wales but can't tacklle. Coaches tend to stick with who they know.

Hodgson can tackle now. Saracens have taught him how to defend.


I do think that Lancaster should either pick both Youngs and Flood together or leave both out of the 22. Youngs cannot work without Flood.

Surely Rowntree is having as much an input as Farrell...as the pack have looked pretty good. And all the penalties have dropped (bar a minor lapse against the French)

Yes it hasnt been exhilerating rugby..but its been efficient. Not bad for 4 games together.

Give them a good summer tour where i would look at taking a few more of the playmaker 10's...Ford, Burns and the likes of Johnny May etc things are looking up.

Im not sure how to feel about mallet coming in. Doesnt make me feel particularly excited.

What is Flood like as a person?
Maybe he isn't a team player or isn't a positive person to have around?

He wouldn't have survived at Tigers under Cockers if that was the case. Cockerill ditched the likes of Varndell early on because he wasn't a team player and will do the same to anyone else not Tigers focussed.

I do think that Lancaster should either pick both Youngs and Flood together or leave both out of the 22. Youngs cannot work without Flood.

Not true. Youngs and Flood compliment each other well because they play on the same page. Youngs is still barely match fit and likes to play a running, attacking game which England are not using. He is the wrong choice all over for England at the moment.

Flood, however, was brilliant against Gloucester. His tactical kicking was everything England tried to do against Scotland and Italy in bad conditions (except it worked) and he offered more running rugby in those conditions than either of the other 10s did in the other 4 games so far. In fact the last 15 against Wales saw England move the ball and create more chances than at any other point in the game. It baffles me why he wasn't starting against France. I can only presume with such a short time to bring the squad together Farrell Snr wants to work with players he knows because it will be easier for him to get his point across.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

What is Flood like as a person?
Maybe he isn't a team player or isn't a positive person to have around?

He wouldn't have survived at Tigers under Cockers if that was the case. Cockerill ditched the likes of Varndell early on because he wasn't a team player and will do the same to anyone else not Tigers focussed.

I do think that Lancaster should either pick both Youngs and Flood together or leave both out of the 22. Youngs cannot work without Flood.

Not true. Youngs and Flood compliment each other well because they play on the same page. Youngs is still barely match fit and likes to play a running, attacking game which England are not using. He is the wrong choice all over for England at the moment.

Flood, however, was brilliant against Gloucester. His tactical kicking was everything England tried to do against Scotland and Italy in bad conditions (except it worked) and he offered more running rugby in those conditions than either of the other 10s did in the other 4 games so far. In fact the last 15 against Wales saw England move the ball and create more chances than at any other point in the game. It baffles me why he wasn't starting against France. I can only presume with such a short time to bring the squad together Farrell Snr wants to work with players he knows because it will be easier for him to get his point across.

Yes Sam I know you think that Youngs and Flood are the best thing since sliced bread. Simply put they are not.

Have you got any proof that Youngs can work without his comfort blanket (Flood)?

How can Ben Youngs be barely match fit? That's a ludicrous statement. You simply enjoy making excuses for Young's gutless displays for England.

I love it. In at least two examples when a Leicester player are awful for England - you say it's because England aren't using him properly. Of course it's never ever the player's fault.

Yes Youngs and Flood show that behind a hugely dominant pack that they can do well. An armchair ride proves nothing.

It would baffle you that he wasn't starting vs France. Flood can't just stroll back into the side any more. He has to work for his place.

The other Leicester players like Croft,M.Tuilagi and Cole don't seem to have any problems in regards to form at the moment.

Ladies and Gentleman...welcome to tonights Epic Royal Rumble....

Beshocked v Sam


Make it a clean fight boys...

How can Ben Youngs be barely match fit? That's a ludicrous statement. You simply enjoy making excuses for Young's gutless displays for England.

See that's bias. Youngs performances hardly lack heart, they lack precision and understanding with the players around him. He's played 10 games all season on the back of a very bad knee injury which he played on at the RWC. He's not had a lot of rest time and is clearly not in form. Hence he should be released back to Tigers as he isn't working well for England. I was hardly saying he was the best thing since sliced bread.

The other Leicester players like Croft,M.Tuilagi and Cole don't seem to have any problems in regards to form at the moment.

Manu's form still isn't his best, he just looks lightyears ahead of the other England centres in terms of pace and power. He's not fully over the hamstring injury and his confidence isn't quite back (note the indecision for the pass that never was to Sharples and the failed grubber vs France). Cole and Croft have been rested and remained injury free hence easy to build up form.

It would baffle you that he wasn't starting vs France. Flood can't just stroll back into the side any more. He has to work for his place.

Flood has a good record vs France and played a near perfect game vs Gloucester. In similar conditions Hodgson was extremely average vs a poor Saints team. Add into that the England vs Wales game where Flood showed more attacking intent in 15 mins off the bench than Farrell and Hodgson showed in 225 mins over the course of 3 games. Flood was not going to win his place back irrespective of what he did. The coaching team had selected their squad and they are going for consistentcy in a big way.

It's like ground hog day on here sometimes.

Sam

Do you see the coaching team going for consistency of selection as a bad thing?

Again you make excuses for Youngs. Every other player in the England side had to put up with unfamiliarity too.

Youngs and Flood are part of a double pack combo. Pick one and you should really pick the other. If you pick neither that's fine too.

Not a lot of rest time? 10 out of 28 Leicester games is plenty!

Hodgson was MOM against a Saints side chasing 2nd in the AP.

Saints are only deemed poor by you because they lost.

Gloucester must have put in a decent performance to get 40 points shipped against them.

From all accounts the Leicester pack demolished the Gloucester one with the Leicester half backs getting armchair ride.

In comparison the Sarries vs Saints packs was closer. You say Saints were poor but they still had a powerful pack with the likes of Tongauiha and PDJ in their frontrow.

Not really, Johnno copped a lot of criticism for it but I think it was a good thing then and now it is what is needed. I see little point for instance in changing the 32 man training squad and the majority of the 22 man game day squad being retained is the right call. I'd have liked to see a little more tweaking within those EPS players (much as I would have done with Johnno) as I fear we are stuck in a middle ground between tactics and that is limiting us (similar under Johnno).

Again you make excuses for Youngs

Hardly, I said he should be dropped.

Hodgson was MOM against a Saints side chasing 2nd in the AP

In a truely dire game of rugby where the conditions were the winner. Little to no enterprise shown by either team, it was merely a kicking competition.

From all accounts the Leicester pack demolished the Gloucester one with the Leicester half backs getting armchair ride.

The forwards won their battle but Flood put them in all the right areas. Testing high kicks for May, long kicks into the corners and tricky grubbers kept the very mobile Gloucester team in their own half for most of the game. Gloucester are a good and dangerous team, but much like Sarries did in the AP Semi last year, if you deny them territory then they start to struggle. The forwards did not win that match on their own.

I'm not sure what you mean by stuck in a middle ground between tactics???

I think you might be right in terms of tweaking of selection though. In particular around bench options. This weeks game i fell would have been an ideal opportunity to have a look at Marler and Clark from the bench. We now realistically cannot win the Championship, as it would require a massive points swing, so this game, whilst we want to win to continue with building, could have been used to look at these guys.

Ozzy3213 wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by stuck in a middle ground between tactics???

I think you might be right in terms of tweaking of selection though. In particular around bench options. This weeks game i fell would have been an ideal opportunity to have a look at Marler and Clark from the bench. We now realistically cannot win the Championship, as it would require a massive points swing, so this game, whilst we want to win to continue with building, could have been used to look at these guys.

I disagree. This coming game is a must win for Lancaster. If we win then the job should be his by rights, if not then Mallet is in with a real shout and people will start calling the France result a bit of a fluke. The bench (and to an extent the XV) should vary naturally with form, Marler and Clark are young and will get their chances, no need to rush them if other players are currently more deserving of a place. It's not as if they're being held back by ageing war horses soon to be put out to pasture.

I have to say i havent been impressed with the bench option mind.

I do think we need to look at our options there...Dowson and Stevens havent done it for me.

screamingaddabs wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by stuck in a middle ground between tactics???

I think you might be right in terms of tweaking of selection though. In particular around bench options. This weeks game i fell would have been an ideal opportunity to have a look at Marler and Clark from the bench. We now realistically cannot win the Championship, as it would require a massive points swing, so this game, whilst we want to win to continue with building, could have been used to look at these guys.

I disagree. This coming game is a must win for Lancaster. If we win then the job should be his by rights, if not then Mallet is in with a real shout and people will start calling the France result a bit of a fluke. The bench (and to an extent the XV) should vary naturally with form, Marler and Clark are young and will get their chances, no need to rush them if other players are currently more deserving of a place. It's not as if they're being held back by ageing war horses soon to be put out to pasture.

Why should this be a must win game for Lancaster in terms of getting the job. If the brief is to build a team capable of winning WC 2015 then Saturdays result should be irrelevant. What should count is does he have the vision and the ability to put structures in place for ensuring that we have a competitive team going forward. Similarly winning against Ireland should not guarantee him the job.

In relation to Marler and Clark, they are kept out by Stevens and Dowson, who are 29 and 30 respectively. Neither has shown that they can provide a positive impact off the bench so far, and neither is likely to be around for 2015. England would lose nothing in my opinion by replacing them on the bench this weekend with Marler and Clark, but they could gain plenty.

I'm not sure what you mean by stuck in a middle ground between tactics???

We have selected a pack with a massive emphasis on mobility and the ability to use the ball in hand. To compliment that we seem to have adopted a very conservative attacking game plan, the scrummy always passes from the base and the 10s have sitting deep and looking to use the boot. We've picked a big and defensively sound centre partnership that are good at getting over the gainline. We've then picked wingers and a full back who love running the ball back and coming in on angles flat on the gainline. It doesn't match up for me and I think the attack isn't flowing because of it.

If you're going to play the conservative game plan then bring in a full back that can compete in the tactical kicking game, Brown has a cannon of a boot. Wingers that like to come in and cut the line (Strettle and Ashton) will be picked off because the backs moves are too simple and too far from the gainline. Bring in speedsters to chase the kicks or another tactical option to suppliment the full back. If you want to use that attacking back three then the scrummy needs to start picking and drawing the opposition in before using the 10 who should be flat on the gainline looking for spaces. At the minute we aren't really doing either.

The only reason i can see Stevens kept in is to play either side.

But surely PDJ is better in that criteria.

Lancaster's greatest achievements so far: team commitment, and unearthing an excelllent #2 FH.

Lancaster's greatest failure so far: the selection and use of the bench, and his failure to give our #1 FH significant game time.

The failures will be forgotten if we beat Ire.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by stuck in a middle ground between tactics???

We have selected a pack with a massive emphasis on mobility and the ability to use the ball in hand. To compliment that we seem to have adopted a very conservative attacking game plan, the scrummy always passes from the base and the 10s have sitting deep and looking to use the boot. We've picked a big and defensively sound centre partnership that are good at getting over the gainline. We've then picked wingers and a full back who love running the ball back and coming in on angles flat on the gainline. It doesn't match up for me and I think the attack isn't flowing because of it.

If you're going to play the conservative game plan then bring in a full back that can compete in the tactical kicking game, Brown has a cannon of a boot. Wingers that like to come in and cut the line (Strettle and Ashton) will be picked off because the backs moves are too simple and too far from the gainline. Bring in speedsters to chase the kicks or another tactical option to suppliment the full back. If you want to use that attacking back three then the scrummy needs to start picking and drawing the opposition in before using the 10 who should be flat on the gainline looking for spaces. At the minute we aren't really doing either.

Ah right, that all makes sense. I disagree to a certain extent though. I think we are trying to play a bit, just with limited success. I get the impression from comments from various players that a lot of initial emphasis has been put on having a solid defence and being a counter attacking side, and when we have possession the onus is on the players to play what is front of them rather than having an over complicated set of backs moves to call on. This may be a decision taken by Lancaster as a consequence of having a few new faces and limited time to work with the players.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Lancaster's greatest achievements so far: team commitment, and unearthing an excelllent #2 FH.

Lancaster's greatest failure so far: the selection and use of the bench, and his failure to give our #1 FH significant game time.

The failures will be forgotten if we beat Ire.

#1 FH is not Flood anymore. Certainly not in Lancaster's eyes.

Fair points Ozzy but we aren't running any backs moves, complicated or otherwise. Passing it down the line until one of the players decides he'll take it up and reset is not a backs move. Playing what you see sounds easy but you need players with vision to make the calls on the fly to make things happen. That's a lot to ask a young fly half and a scrum half new to international rugby to do.

I'm not sure the lack of prep holds either as the backline is mainly Sarries (particularly at the start of the 6N) and nothing was called or worked then either. I respect the need for a defence to laid first as the foundations of what comes after but we seem short of a definite plan.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by stuck in a middle ground between tactics???

I think you might be right in terms of tweaking of selection though. In particular around bench options. This weeks game i fell would have been an ideal opportunity to have a look at Marler and Clark from the bench. We now realistically cannot win the Championship, as it would require a massive points swing, so this game, whilst we want to win to continue with building, could have been used to look at these guys.

I disagree. This coming game is a must win for Lancaster. If we win then the job should be his by rights, if not then Mallet is in with a real shout and people will start calling the France result a bit of a fluke. The bench (and to an extent the XV) should vary naturally with form, Marler and Clark are young and will get their chances, no need to rush them if other players are currently more deserving of a place. It's not as if they're being held back by ageing war horses soon to be put out to pasture.

Why should this be a must win game for Lancaster in terms of getting the job. If the brief is to build a team capable of winning WC 2015 then Saturdays result should be irrelevant. What should count is does he have the vision and the ability to put structures in place for ensuring that we have a competitive team going forward. Similarly winning against Ireland should not guarantee him the job.

In relation to Marler and Clark, they are kept out by Stevens and Dowson, who are 29 and 30 respectively. Neither has shown that they can provide a positive impact off the bench so far, and neither is likely to be around for 2015. England would lose nothing in my opinion by replacing them on the bench this weekend with Marler and Clark, but they could gain plenty.

I agree that it shouldn't come down to the result of the Ireland game as to whether he gets the job or not but I think if they do win then the RFU will have a really tough sell trying to get the public behind Mallet. As such I think it's very important for Lancaster.

Is Marler better than Stevens and is Clark better than Dowson? If yes then play them. If no, then keep them in the squad, gaining experience and give them games on tour in SA (assuming there are some non-international games) or in the Autumn internationals (though probably not against the ABs!). I think a squad will naturally progress if you simply play the best players regardless of their age. Don't pick someone because they are young or old and don't leave them out because they are young or old. In any case Dowson and Stevens could BOTH make the next world cup, it's not like they're 36. At the next world cup in 2015 they will be 32 and 33. Old, but not necessarily past it (especially Stevens as a prop who had a couple of years out the game).

Beating Ireland in the 6 nations is important to a lot of fans, and as I said I think that actually it will have a lot of bearing over whether Lancaster gets the job, even though it perhaps shouldn't.

screamingaddabs wrote:

Is Marler better than Stevens and is Clark better than Dowson?

On current form I would I would say yes. Stevens has shown nothing at international level through the World Cup and 6 nations and Dowson has proved what many have long suspected, that he is an excellent player at Premiership level but does not possess that bit extra to go on and become a top international.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:

Is Marler better than Stevens and is Clark better than Dowson?

On current form I would I would say yes. Stevens has shown nothing at international level through the World Cup and 6 nations and Dowson has proved what many have long suspected, that he is an excellent player at Premiership level but does not possess that bit extra to go on and become a top international.

In which case they should be playing, but it has nothing to do with age in my opinion. The best players play, regardless of age. I haven't seen enough premiership rugby to give a good informed opinion about who is playing best, but if Marler or Clark is better then they should be selected. I would hazard a guess that some people disagree with your assessment of them being better however, in which case it should be Dowson and Stevens. (Not saying I disagree with your assessment, I don't know!)

england need some stability. they havent looked like having a settled core for a while but it looks like there is one developing now. no need to rush flood back.

glamorganalun wrote:Flood does not play for the Sarries, I would have him n place of Hogson who is very limited, he is the equivalent of S Jones for Wales but can't tacklle. Coaches tend to stick with who they know.

Funny, last year before CH went to Sarries he was a flaky 10 that could not tackle but the best attacking (EQ) and kicking out of hand 10 in the AV.

Now he has gone to Sarries, learnt to tackle as part of probably the best defence in the AV; he has become very limited and apparently still can't tackle. But he can make charge downs.

Hodgson played the game to the conditions; biting cold and snowy. England won as they realised that throwing the ball around would create errors. Scotland and Italy were given no choice but to run the ball, they made mistakes, England won. It's called pragmatism.

"Is Marler better than Stevens and is Clark better than Dowson? "

In my opinion, yes to the first, no to the second.

Jim Malander seems to agree with me about the second as well.

But surely the Stevens problem is down to who can play both sides due to not having a full front row allocation on the bench.

Other wise we could have a LH AND a TH on the bench.

At the moment we are electing to play someone who can play both sides (Stevens ) as opposed to someone who can play one side better (Marler or Mullan)

Based on that criteria i would rather have Paul Doran Jones however who can play both sides better than Stevens.

Agree with Geordie. I think Lancaster and Farrell like the mobility of Stevens off the bench, personally I think he's only good for getting us one penalty and giving away two.

There is absolutely no point discussing whether Flood should have been in the squad Imy opinion he should) or whether Youngs and Stevens should be dropped (again in my opinion they should, case for dropping Youngs only weakened as there is virtually no competition that is fit and not suspened).

Reason being that there was no way on earth Lancaster was going to change his mind. Flood and Hodgson did not play while Farrell was strong in defence. Youngs and Stevens did nothing right but nothing wrong.

If Lancaster can impress teh RFU with his "vision" and gets teh job full time, we can see whether he can develop a team with a playing style that stands a chance of being successful at the top level.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:"Is Marler better than Stevens and is Clark better than Dowson? "

In my opinion, yes to the first, no to the second.

Jim Malander seems to agree with me about the second as well.

Not sure you are right there. Until Clark was injured (and then Wood) it looked as though Saints first choice back row was 6 clark, 7 Wood, 8 wilson - with Dowson covering all 3 positions when players needed rests or were injured.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:Is Marler better than Stevens and is Clark better than Dowson?

On current form I would I would say yes. Stevens has shown nothing at international level through the World Cup and 6 nations and Dowson has proved what many have long suspected, that he is an excellent player at Premiership level but does not possess that bit extra to go on and become a top international.

Dowson should have been picked 2 years ago when his form was outstanding, unfortunately he's not had such a good year this time and I agree it looks like it won't happen for him in the long term. I think the only reason he is keeping Clark out (a huge Lancaster favorite) is that it doesn't look like Morgan can last 80 minutes of international rugby at full tilt (yet), so he feels he needs a player capable of playing 8 on the bench. I know Robshaw could be moved to 8 but from what I've seen that should only be in absolute emergencies only. Dowson can (and has) played in all 3 backrow positions for Saints so he can cover any player but for me isn't an impact player (much how I see Palmer).

I too would have slected Marler on the bench for this game. As I understand it he is still in the squad for now but expect Stevens to keep his spot come Saturday.

LondonTiger wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:"Is Marler better than Stevens and is Clark better than Dowson? "

In my opinion, yes to the first, no to the second.

Jim Malander seems to agree with me about the second as well.

Not sure you are right there. Until Clark was injured (and then Wood) it looked as though Saints first choice back row was 6 clark, 7 Wood, 8 wilson - with Dowson covering all 3 positions when players needed rests or were injured.

Correct, that is how they started the season. On the Saints forum the thinking is that JM may not bother signing a top class 8 to replace Wilson and instead go with 6 Clark, 7 Wood & 8 Dowson for next season. Concern would be if injuries hit England then the whole backrow could be called up during the AI's!

Flood as been out of form lately and Hodgson and Farrelhave doen alright so far.

Just because Ben Youngs is in the team, and Flood is Ben Youngs teammate does not meen that Flood should automaticaly get back into the England team now does iit?

I do believe that if Danny Care had not been stupid and get arrested, then he could maybe Englands starting SH, and seeing how good Dickson has been playing, Youngs may not even have got into the team.

No i do think that alot of credit should go to Lancaster for picking a squad and sticking with them.

With Regards to the bench i do agree their could maybe a different choice.

Flood as been out of form lately and Hodgson and Farrelhave doen alright so far.

Just because Ben Youngs is in the team, and Flood is Ben Youngs teammate does not meen that Flood should automaticaly get back into the England team now does it?

Other than a dodgey performance on his first game back from injury against Exeter, Flood has been very good. He was also in very good form before getting injured. Youngs has struggled for form after never recovering properly from his knee injury in the summer. Flood also offered a star cameo off the bench against Wales with a cross field kick illegally tipped into touch just as Strettle looked to be claiming it and scoring and then quick hands to give Brown the opportunity to make the pass for Strettle's attempted score.

He is in good form and offers something different to what Hodgson and Farrell offer which is why the debate is happening.