still no flood???

First topic message reminder :

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?

For me Flood is a good player, as he has demonstrated domestically and internationally. That is beyond question, and were he not injured pre tournament i'm sure he would have started most, if not all of England's 6N games so far.

That said, the claims on here that Charlie Hodgson is a limited fly half are utterly absurd. He played well in the 6N games he started with a scratch team and the least dynamic midfield since Dylan Hartley put his hand up to be a centre in junior rugby.

CH has also proved that he is an excellent FH internationally, stlowe posted some of his stats a while ago across his career. He also has a better pass and kicking (from hand) game than Flood. He stands flat and has great vision, and his goal kicking is often excellent. I don't know where some of these absurd opinions come from regarding his inability to place kick?! He is the Jeff's all time top points scorer.

Essentially all that can be said is that a) Flood hasn't had much of a chance to prove himself but that b) It would be unfair to drop either Farrell or Hodgson based on some pretty strong performances. That's why Flood's not back in the team.

He has frankly never been good enough at international level to be nailed on 100% come what may like some other players have.

No Flood has not been out of form. Youngs has and is out of form and is perhaps only in the squad as last man standing.

Flood is very much in form, but Lancaster has changed his initial opinion and believes Farrell and Hodgson are better players. He is the coach, he makes the decisions, and it was his decision to drop Flood from the squad and recall Hodgson.

On the one hand it was totally to be expected after his omission from the France squad: Tigers played LV= cup at the weekend so he didn't have chance to make a case. Hodgson didn't get chance to ruin his, therefore why would Lancaster have changed his mind from last week to this?

That said, I do disagree with the decision. Fair play: Hodgson was asked to step up to the mark at the start of the tournament and didn't really put a foot wrong so, finger injury now healed, logically he comes back into the squad. If he had made way for Flood he would certainly have a right to feel aggrieved. BUT surely there's no room for that sort of sentimentality at this level? Here's the thing:

In the long-term it's a no-brainer: Flood offers much more.

But in the short-term it seems equally obvious: even Hodgson's boldest advocate could not call him an impact player. What, seriously, is Lancaster expecting Hodgson's role to be? It seems that his role as substitute is merely 'injury backup' as opposed to the very real 'plan b' that Flood would have offered off the bench. Makes no sense to me....

Chjw131 wrote:For me Flood is a good player, as he has demonstrated domestically and internationally. That is beyond question, and were he not injured pre tournament i'm sure he would have started most, if not all of England's 6N games so far.

That said, the claims on here that Charlie Hodgson is a limited fly half are utterly absurd. He played well in the 6N games he started with a scratch team and the least dynamic midfield since Dylan Hartley put his hand up to be a centre in junior rugby.

CH has also proved that he is an excellent FH internationally, stlowe posted some of his stats a while ago across his career. He also has a better pass and kicking (from hand) game than Flood. He stands flat and has great vision, and his goal kicking is often excellent. I don't know where some of these absurd opinions come from regarding his inability to place kick?! He is the Jeff's all time top points scorer.

Essentially all that can be said is that a) Flood hasn't had much of a chance to prove himself but that b) It would be unfair to drop either Farrell or Hodgson based on some pretty strong performances. That's why Flood's not back in the team.

He has frankly never been good enough at international level to be nailed on 100% come what may like some other players have.

Agree with pretty much eveything said here. I think it's a little harsh to say Flood was never 100% nailed on; at times he has been. But he hasn't been for a while. Even O'Connor said that Flood's confidence is shot to bits. Definitely doesn't need to be rushed back in with CH and OF performing acceptably...

Farrell seems to have several strings to his bow and can vary his game to keep the opposition guessing. Flood on the other hand is predictable by comparison and has a limited set of skills.

Ben Youngs would have been dropped by now had Joe Simpson not picked up a serious injury. He is lucky to still be there.

Flood is now our 2nd best option to start, with Hodgson the most experienced wise head to bring on later if needed. With the exception of one missed penalty (more than made up for by 2 excellent conversions), I can think of nothing Flood would have done better than Farrell at 10 last Sunday with boot, hand or brain.

Lancaster is in a tricky position, his success has been built on great team spirit and loyalty to one another and that has shown on the pitch. So Lancaster must show some of that back to Hodgson who has to be given some credit for the 2 wins over Italy and Scotland to keep that ethos in the squad. But he also has to do what is best for the team and make those hard decisions and drop Hodgson and pick Flood who offers more variety and is a better long term option. However Flood has played well for Tigers and had a decent stint against Wales. Only decent and we probably looked more expansive as we were chasing the game. So I can understand Lancaster compromising the overall future for the time and now and the teams ethos as Flood hasnt made it impossible for Lancaster not to pick him. I also do not agree that Flood should become starting Fly Half, he hasnt shown enough variety in his game and crumbled under pressure. Farrell has drifted out of some games I think when England have dipped but he will continue to grow into the england shirt and get better and he already has nerves of steel.

And in (further) defence of Farrell, how good did Flood, Hodgson or even JW look after their first 4 internationals in a much stronger England side?

Farrell has looked composed and he defends well. His strength is his kicking which tactically went a lkittle missing against France.

I am sure he will develop and he really needs to develop his passing and running game if he is to have a good international career.

Although he has changed his tune recently, perhaps to defend his baby, Saracen's biggest fan on here (Beshocked) was adamant in January that Farrell was not good enough yet to be starting for England because of this "weakness" in his game. So long as Saracens start with Hodgson at 10 (imo he is a better 10 right now than Farrell) and play their ultra conservative, risk aversion game Farrells chances to develop into a more rounded player will be limited. Perhaps he shoudl move to Quins or Glaws

SL will go for the same tactics against Ireland as he used for France and that worked pretty well. Farrell has earnt his spot and his defence has been top notch. Flood just hasnt looked that great to be honest and would have had to do something pretty special to oust Farrell.

eirebilly wrote:SL will go for the same tactics against Ireland as he used for France and that worked pretty well. Farrell has earnt his spot and his defence has been top notch. Flood just hasnt looked that great to be honest and would have had to do something pretty special to oust Farrell.

I don't think many (certainly not me) are arguing that Flood should be starting ahead of Farrell. You're quite right: 'Plan A' will be no different. But Hodgson was not used off the bench against France. If 'Plan A' goes belly-up then does Hodgson really offer a 'Plan B' from the bench?

Flood can - if needs be - come on at the 60 minute mark and make a difference. He plays his best rugby as games open up. He is the far better bench option in the short term with the added incentive that he is also several years Hodgson's junior and ought to be involved for the long term.

I've read some reasonable arguments here, but none that convince me that Hodgson is a better bench option for this game than Flood. Again: bench option. I'm not suggesting Flood should have walked into the starting jersey.

Yeah its a tough call but i feel that Hodgson is being rewarded by loyalty for his two chargedown tries and to be honest, i cant really argue with that.

I love the way loyalty to players has become a "good thing", when last year it was so derided.

Well, personally LT i think that he is deserved of it this time. He has also played well when given the chance.

Farrell seems to have several strings to his bow and can vary his game to keep the opposition guessing. Flood on the other hand is predictable by comparison and has a limited set of skills.

Disagree with all of that. Farrell has uses one of two options all game and they are a) pass down the line or b) kick. Farrell has a nice kicking game (France was not an example of this but normally it's good) but he stands very deep and passes slowly down the line in exactly the same way Wilko was villified for.

Flood has an inferior kicking game (not by much) but a far better passing game, he stands flat and has the vision to bring in players around him. He also has a step and acceleration which Farrell lacks.

On Current form Flood is the best attacking option England have at 10 and Farrell is the best tactical option whilst Hodgson represents a nice middle ground. You could chose any of the three to start but against France Flood was by the far the best choice. Against Ireland Farrell may be a better option (as long as his kicking is back to it's best), Hodgson really isn't a bench option but I don't think anyone has been happy with the use of the bench so far.

I think (and hope) that Hodgson is included as he's trained and played more with the current squad. I expect he's only there for injuries. If we take 3 'fly halves' to South Africa (is Farrell a 10 now?) then I'd hope it was Farrell, Flood and possibly Burns.

LondonTiger wrote:Farrell has looked composed and he defends well. His strength is his kicking which tactically went a lkittle missing against France.

I am sure he will develop and he really needs to develop his passing and running game if he is to have a good international career.

Although he has changed his tune recently, perhaps to defend his baby, Saracen's biggest fan on here (Beshocked) was adamant in January that Farrell was not good enough yet to be starting for England because of this "weakness" in his game. So long as Saracens start with Hodgson at 10 (imo he is a better 10 right now than Farrell) and play their ultra conservative, risk aversion game Farrells chances to develop into a more rounded player will be limited. Perhaps he shoudl move to Quins or Glaws

I will defend Farrell because I think he gets a lot of unfair criticism plus he plays for my club. I still acknowledge Farrell has flaws. I am not as blinkered as you all probably think. His passing has been alright in my opinion. Not great but ok. You might disagree but I believe he assisted in the 1st and 3rd England tries. His excellent offload and Dickson's quick pass gave Tuilagi the space to work with for the first try. For the 3rd his long pass meant the ball was worked wide to Croft.


Sam I would agree with your summary. I actually think Flood is a good player. With Hodgson,Flood and Farrell you have 3 fly halves who are competent, offering different options with none really being that far ahead of the others.

Flood has indeed been in good club form but because his injury, Farrell and Hodgson have cemented themselves in the England 22. I wouldn't have much to argue about whoever Lancaster picks out of those 3 to start.

LondonTiger it's very interesting actually. I think Hodgson is one of the best fly halves at club level. Seems to have more time than international level and looks more assured. At international level Hodgson has not yet had the pleasure of working with a back line partnership of Dickson,Barritt and Tuilagi.

In the first two matches Hodgson was hampered by the admittedly uncreative Farrell-Barritt combo in the centres and the off form Youngs.

To be fair to Flood he hasn't had many opportunities (just one) to put a case for getting his fly half spot back. Tough for him but someone has to miss out.

By the way I think Youngs is a talented player simply woefully out of form.

maestegmafia wrote: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.

Given that Rowntree has essentially been promoted from scrum coach to forwards coach, and has been conducting interviews all over the place throughout the tournament, I don't know what makes you call him 'quieter and quieter'.

thomh wrote:

maestegmafia wrote: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.

Given that Rowntree has essentially been promoted from scrum coach to forwards coach, and has been conducting interviews all over the place throughout the tournament, I don't know what makes you call him 'quieter and quieter'.

I think Rowntree has done a good job. I agree. I don't think he has been quiet.

By the way I think Youngs is a talented player simply woefully out of form.

Don't think anyone will argue with that. He did play well for Tigers against Gloucester but he still lacked precision. I hope he gets the summer off rather than being dragged to SA as he looks like he needs some rest and a proper pre season.

You might disagree but I believe he assisted in the 1st and 3rd England tries.

The offload was nice for the Manu try but the less said about the big pass to Barritt for the Croft try the better. That was a wild pass that was high and behind Barritt, worked out alright in the end though. Farrell makes life difficult for himself because he stand Wilko esque deep, if he played closer to the gainline and worked on his passing to make it a little crisper than the simple backs moves he prefers would be more dangerous but from deep they are too easy to read.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

By the way I think Youngs is a talented player simply woefully out of form.

Don't think anyone will argue with that. He did play well for Tigers against Gloucester but he still lacked precision. I hope he gets the summer off rather than being dragged to SA as he looks like he needs some rest and a proper pre season.

You might disagree but I believe he assisted in the 1st and 3rd England tries.

The offload was nice for the Manu try but the less said about the big pass to Barritt for the Croft try the better. That was a wild pass that was high and behind Barritt, worked out alright in the end though. Farrell makes life difficult for himself because he stand Wilko esque deep, if he played closer to the gainline and worked on his passing to make it a little crisper than the simple backs moves he prefers would be more dangerous but from deep they are too easy to read.

Agree See, we don't always disagree. Barritt had it under control. He was expecting it. Agree that Farrell has to work on his passing but he is still only 20. He has fared well against his opposite number. A battle vs Sexton will be interesting - tough too I expect.

France and Wales were games that didn't suit Farrell. They were games where ability ball in hand were going to be key and where he was always going to struggle. Ireland on the other hand is a game where I'd actually back him. The Irish forwards will slow the ball down and the defence will be aggressive, we've tried playing them off the park before and it doesn't work unless there is a strong referee (which there won't be this weekend). Farrell's tactical kicking game needs to shine if we're going to win and his defensive skills should be tested with the bulky runners in the Irish team.

Kick the Irish to death (no POC means we can challenge the lineout) and force them to chase the game, that's when they'll start to make mistakes.

It's odd that Farrells dad had in his day one of the best passes going from either hand, but he doesn't seem to have taught his son this. Instead Owen is a metronomic kicker, the opposite to his dad.

If Marler hasn't been returned to his club does this mean we could see him on the bench on Sat (fingers crossed).

I don't think Marler was returned for the French game either. Injury cover (although that when the squad had travelled away. It wouldn't take him long to get from London to...London in this case, so maybe

Just seen that he's been left out.

Oh Mears is in there though, unexpected. Man hooker is such a weak position for us!

Mears is in because he was the experienced back-up who's been learning the lineout calls. He's fulfilling the same role Chuter did for a while. Making changes to the squad now would be crazy and largely pointless. The only possible changes I might have made is Flood on the bench, Marler on the bench and Sharples starting. However, not particularly bothered by the current selection.

The starting XV is a good choice. I'd have liked to see Marler on the bench, but I'm sure being part of the travelling squad for the three away games, as well as 2 months scrum training with Rowntree, will have been great experience for him anyway.